read_releases

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining ordering (newest first) and the meaning of the currentOnly filter. It does not describe the full return shape, but that burden is partially covered by the limit parameter's note about truncation.

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 compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core behavior ('Releases, newest first') before the optional filters. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description plus schema cover the essential semantics: what is returned, the ordering, the filters, and the truncation behavior. It is not missing critical information, though it doesn't spell out default values for currentOnly or project type handling in detail.

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 33% (only 'limit' is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does: 'optionally for one project' explains the project parameter, and 'currentOnly for releases in progress' explains the boolean. The limit parameter is already well-described in the schema. The explanation is concise but adequate.

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 identifies the resource ('Releases') and specifies sorting behavior ('newest first') plus two optional filtering dimensions (project, currentOnly). It distinguishes itself from sibling read_* tools by name and scope, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'read' or 'list'.

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 gives useful context for filters—'optionally for one project' and 'currentOnly for releases in progress'—but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool name and the read_* sibling grouping, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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