get_release_calendar

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: scans across projects, orders releases, computes cadence, and flags parked queues. However, it omits potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, though the read-only nature is inferable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a summary line followed by detailed behavior and parameter explanations. It is informative but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, but could be streamlined.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 simple parameters, no annotations, and an output schema existence, the description adequately explains the output (per-project details) and usage. It does not describe return value format in detail, but output schema provides that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: projects ('Comma-separated project keys to include (all if blank)'), lookback_days ('Shipped-release window for cadence (default: 30)'), and instance ('YouTrack instance (optional)').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as providing a release calendar with in-flight releases, recent ships, and cadence ETAs. It distinguishes from siblings like get_roadmap by detailing specific outputs (e.g., flagged parked queues) and the scanning of release/RC-titled tickets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through detailed output but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_roadmap, get_team_dashboard). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.