List OtaKit release history

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 structurally. The description adds that the history is "bounded" (paginated) and that lane identity/options are preserved in the result, which is useful but thin and leaves pagination defaults and return shape unstated.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the core action (listing release history for an app) first, with the filter and output characteristics trailing. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing clause is slightly opaque rather than purely informative.

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 read-only, fully documented list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for correct invocation. However, it never explains what "bounded" means in practice or what "runtime-lane identity" implies for the returned records, and with no output schema those terms remain unclarified.

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 appId, limit, cursor, and channel are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the app scope and channel filter, adding no format or default details beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 bounded release history for an app") plus the optional channel filter, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_bundles or list_events. It does not name an alternative sibling, and the closing clause about "runtime-lane identity and all release options" is jargon that does not sharpen the purpose.

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 only usage cue is that the result can be optionally filtered to a channel; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_bundles, get_release_state, or get_release_health, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema already implies.

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