list_releases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List releases') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it requires authentication, how results are ordered, if it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), what the output format is, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and list functionality. It doesn't cover authentication needs, output format, pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. For a GitHub API tool with siblings that include mutations (e.g., 'create_release'), more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all parameters (owner, repo, per_page, page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, default values, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('releases for a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_release_asset' or 'create_release' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving specific assets or creating releases. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_issues', 'list_commits') beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare to similar tools like 'list_commits' or 'list_issues', or specify use cases (e.g., checking release history, finding latest version). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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