list_releases

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

The [READ] tag is redundant with readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations do not: results are newest-first, the server caps limit at 99, and the response carries a 'truncated' flag when more rows exist. That truncation signal is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to decide whether to re-query.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes the operation, and the Args block is compact and scannable with no filler. Every clause adds information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, parameter semantics, and the truncation contract, which is close to everything needed. It could mention whether additional rows are reachable (offset/cursor) once truncated, but the essentials are present.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and does so: project accepts an id or full path, limit defaults to 20 with a max of 99, and target is a server target name that can be omitted for the default. Each parameter's meaning and accepted values are defined beyond the bare types in the schema.

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 and resource ('Releases for a project') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), so an agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as list_artifacts or list_pipelines, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 implied by the resource name — an agent would infer 'use this to see a project's releases' — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The 'target' arg hints at multi-server context but no guidance is given on choosing it.

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