List releases

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest first and each item carries asset_count/asset_names. The implicit 'page/limit omitted means auto-paginate the whole list' hint is valuable but stated only obliquely, and rate-limit or large-repo behavior is unaddressed.

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 sentences, zero filler. Scope and sort order come first, return contents second, and the sibling hand-off last — a clean front-loaded structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so for asset_count and asset_names, plus ordering. It omits the other likely release fields (tag name, published date, draft/prerelease flags), which would help an agent know what it can read off the result without a second call.

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%, so owner, repo, page and limit are already fully documented, including the omit-to-auto-paginate semantics. The description only restates them as 'optional page/limit' and adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 a repository's releases'), plus the scoping key (owner/repo), sort order (newest first), and the exact per-item fields (asset_count, asset_names). It also contrasts against the sibling list_release_assets, so an agent can distinguish it from neighboring tools without opening schemas.

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 routes asset-level needs (id, size, download URL) to list_release_assets, which is the main disambiguation risk. It does not address when to prefer get_release for a single release versus this list tool, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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