Release History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it says nothing about auth requirements, whether results are paginated, scope of history, or data source. The output schema covers return shape, but the read-operation context is otherwise bare.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than tight writing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin. The unexplained core_version default and lack of scope/eligibility context leave real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither parameter. In particular the core_version parameter (default '10.x') is completely unexplained, leaving its meaning and interaction with project_id opaque to the agent.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (release history) scoped to a project, so the agent knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools such as module_versions or project_usage, which also surface release/version information.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools despite a very large sibling set. The agent is left to infer whether this is for core, contributed modules, or something else.

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