List releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing, such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or whether include_html_description affects payload size. Given the annotations, the description provides acceptable but minimal additional transparency.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could have used the brevity to add parameter or usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema. The description alone is minimal but the annotations provide safety clarity and the output schema presumably describes return values. Still, with low schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description is barely adequate for a parameter-rich listing tool.

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 only 17%, with only 'project' described inline. The description does not explain page, sort, order_by, per_page, or include_html_description semantics. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states 'List GitLab releases for a project', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like get_release, create_release, and list_release_asset_links, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for listing releases and implicitly that 'project' is required. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_release or list_release_asset_links, nor does it mention pagination or sorting options as usage context.

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