生成发布准备报告

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it only generates a report and explicitly does not commit or deploy, reinforcing no-side-effect behavior beyond what annotations alone state.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause carries meaning: what is checked, what is produced, and what is not done.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, report-generating tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what it does, what it checks, and what it avoids. No output schema is present, but the phrase 'generates a report' sufficiently sets expectations for return behavior.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The description compensates by explaining what the report covers, which is sufficient context for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it confirms branch, commits, workspace, and rule-scan results, and generates a release preparation report. It explicitly differentiates itself from commit/deploy tools by saying it will not commit or deploy, making its purpose distinct among siblings.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for checking release readiness and generating a report. It explicitly excludes commmit and deployment actions, which helps route away from create_commit and deploy_release, though it does not name alternative tools or specify when to choose this over review_changes or quality_gate.

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