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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: releases are newest first, never-live releases are omitted, websites are refused, and a Valet account is required. It also previews the returned fields, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, and most sentences carry useful constraints. The rollback and skill-version sentences are slightly workflow-oriented for a list tool, but they remain relevant and do not bury the main action.

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?

With no output schema, the description needs to explain return content, and it does so by naming version, state, commit, creation time, and active release. It also covers filtering behavior and prerequisites, making it complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, limit, and org_name. The description reinforces ordering and scope but does not add parameter-level syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a precise verb and resource: list an app's, agent's, or skill's releases, and it specifies the returned fields and ordering. It also distinguishes the action from related tools like get_source and get_skill, which are described for different read/rollback purposes.

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?

It provides clear context: use it to inspect release history, then use get_source for rollback files or get_skill for a skill's release version. It also states exclusions and prerequisites, including that websites are refused and a Valet account connection is required. It does not explicitly state a full when-to-use rule against every alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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