list_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('reads the track directly'), exclusion of obsolete releases, max 20 results, and the lifecycle state values. This significantly informs the agent of side-effect-free and scoped behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the purpose, then pack essential behavioral details, lifecycle states, and alternatives. Every sentence provides unique value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies return fields (releaseName, track, activeArtifacts, releaseLifecycleState) and all possible states. It also covers limitations (max 20, excludes obsolete) and the read-only nature, making it complete for a list 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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate. The high-level context about output fields doesn't enhance parameter understanding further.

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 tool lists releases on a track, including non-live ones, and specifies the entry fields. It distinguishes itself from get_track by noting it uniquely shows review state, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'use it to check whether a submitted release is still being reviewed' and contrasts with get_track for rollout details. Naming the alternative directly provides clear decision guidance.

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