list_feature_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 does add one genuine behavioral fact — the tier gate ('Requires Kiln Pro') — and implies only signed releases are returned, which is useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what 'ids that reference them' actually means in the response.

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 useful purpose statement is front-loaded in one sentence, but the next three sentences are marketing copy ('unlimited textures and decorations', a pricing URL) that has no bearing on invoking this listing tool. Roughly three-quarters of the text does not earn 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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a release record looks like or what identifier is returned. It instead spends its budget on an upsell pitch, leaving gaps in both parameter meaning and expected output.

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 only 50%: include_retired carries 'Default: false' but feature_id has no description at all. The description does not compensate — it never explains what feature_id filters on (a feature, a release, a reference id?) despite alluding to 'ids that reference them'.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'List signed feature releases — and the ids that reference them' — so the core action is identifiable. But it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as list_feature_versions, cloud_list_remote_releases, or verify_feature_release, and the remaining three sentences are unrelated upsell copy about calibration and textures that muddies rather than sharpens 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over list_feature_versions or cloud_list_remote_releases, and no statement of prerequisites beyond 'Requires Kiln Pro'. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the name.

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