github_releases_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions read-only behavior implicitly (listing releases) and describes output formatting and pagination. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are typical for a listing tool.

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 concise (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, key features, use cases. No unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main use cases but omits explanation of the 'package' parameter, which is present in the schema. It also doesn't explicitly state that 'owner' and 'repo' are required, though implied. This gap reduces completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'rich formatting' (emojis) and the purpose of pagination and pre-release filtering, which reinforces but goes slightly beyond the schema details.

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' with a specific scope 'for a repository.' It highlights features like chronological order, emojis, pagination, and filtering, making it distinct from sibling tools like github_release_info (single release) and github_releases_compare (diff).

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 clear usage context: 'Perfect for getting an overview of a project's release history, finding the latest version, or monitoring release frequency.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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