cloud_list_remote_releases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at an access requirement ('Requires Kiln Pro'), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, result size, or authentication. Most of the text is marketing rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 single useful sentence is correctly front-loaded, but the following three lines are promotional boilerplate and a pricing URL that consume the majority of the text without helping tool selection. This is noise, not conciseness.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should convey return shape, pagination, or sorting behavior, none of which appear. Only the core purpose is covered, and the tier note is incidental.

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 50%: 'remote' has a documented default while 'design_id' is bare. The description merely names design_id, which the schema already exposes, and adds no format, meaning, or constraint (e.g. whether it is a UUID, whether the remote must exist). With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (list), resource (signed releases), and scope (published to the remote for a given design_id), which is enough for an agent to grasp the operation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like list_design_releases or cloud_remote_list. The remaining three sentences add no purpose information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_design_releases, list_feature_releases, or cloud_remote_list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Everything in Free, plus...' text is a subscription upsell, not usage guidance.

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