List application releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of identifying the current release and scoping to retained releases, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences with the action front-loaded. It is concise, though the phrase 'Makes no changes' is redundant with the annotations. Still, it is efficient and free of filler.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. The description states the core purpose and a prerequisite (registered application). However, it fails to clarify the meaning of the sole parameter and does not explain what 'retained releases' means. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. However, the description does not explicitly state that 'name' refers to the application name. It only says 'for a registered application', leaving the parameter mapping to inference. This is a significant gap given zero coverage.

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 the resource 'retained releases for a registered application', and adds the specific behavior of identifying the current release. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_apps, but the resource scope is distinct enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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 implies usage context: it is for a registered application, suggesting a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is minimal.

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