list_releases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists releases with deployment status, but does not disclose important behaviors such as default result limits (e.g., top=25), pagination, whether it returns all deployment statuses or the latest one, or any side effects (though it is likely read-only). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core function with no wasted words. However, it is slightly too terse to include usage guidance, which would have made it more helpful without sacrificing 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values and behavior. It fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., fields like deployment status, environment details), how the top parameter interacts with other filters, or whether project is required. This incompleteness is a clear gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the 5 parameters clearly described (e.g., 'Filter by release definition ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List releases with deployment status' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (releases), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('with deployment status') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_release_definitions, which lists definitions rather than release instances. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools such as get_release, list_release_definitions, and get_release_logs, the absence of any contextual hints or exclusions leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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