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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: result ordering (newest first), that the build log is only for the latest release, and the incremental-log continuation mechanism via log_from offset and build_log_length. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or explicitly confirming it is read-only.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then the pagination detail. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 read/status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (releases, status, latest build log) and how to page through logs. The main remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which an agent cannot interpret from any source.

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 50%: env and project are documented in the schema, while limit and log_from are not. The description compensates well for log_from ('a character offset', continuation via build_log_length) but leaves limit entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so it only partially fills the coverage gap.

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 resource (releases for an environment) with ordering (newest first) and content (status plus build log of the latest), which clearly distinguishes it from action siblings like deploy, deploy.cancel, and rollback. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it is the read counterpart to, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read-only 'status' framing; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives (e.g. deploy, logs.query) are named. The log_from continuation note is closer to parameter guidance than selection guidance.

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