list_releases

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'published' as a meaningful filter and implies a read-only list operation, but it omits important behavior such as pagination semantics, sort order, response format, or whether release metadata like tags/assets is included. Some value is provided, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 sentence with every word earning its place. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover more ground. It fails to describe the response shape, pagination behavior, or how the returned releases are structured. While the tool is relatively simple, an agent invoking it would have to rely on external knowledge about GitHub's API to know what to expect.

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%, with each parameter documented including defaults, minimums, maximums, and optionality. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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: 'List published releases for a repository.' The term 'published' narrows the scope (excluding drafts/prereleases), and the resource 'releases' is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_branches, list_commits, and list_repositories. Even without naming siblings, the resource type alone differentiates it.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or context about choosing list_releases over get_repository_details or list_comments. The only usage hint is implicit in the name and description; the agent must infer when 'releases' is the desired resource.

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