list_releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that results carry status and a staged-rollout fraction, which is useful signal about content, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty-track behavior, or what 'current' means at the boundary of a rollout.

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?

A single short clause with zero filler, and the key qualifier ('Current', 'staged-rollout fraction') is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being a sentence fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description need not explain return shape, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for a read tool whose whole value depends on scope ('current' on a track, 'all' tracks), the definition leaves the agent to infer how the scope behaves and how it differs from get_release_health.

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 both parameters (app, track) are already documented in the schema, including the 'all' option and the default of 'production'. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond restating the track dimension, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment names a specific resource (releases) and a specific scope (current releases on a Play track), plus the fields returned (status and staged-rollout fraction). It is clearly distinct from the siblings (recommend_rollout, get_release_health, top_crashes, new_issues), though it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and never explicitly says it 'lists'.

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 versus get_release_health or recommend_rollout, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a configured app alias. The word 'Current' weakly implies a present-state snapshot rather than history, but that is inference, not instruction.

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