list_releases

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits such as the newest-first ordering, the meaning of changes_total=0 as 'auditable silence' (routine read), and the limitation to N newest releases. It also mentions the light summary format. While annotations already indicate read-only, it adds meaningful context beyond that, though it could also note potential pagination or lack thereof.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: it defines the output fields, contrasts with list_changes, clarifies changes_total semantics, and provides a pointer to get_release for full details. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description is comprehensive: it specifies the output fields, ordering, the meaning of a zero changes_total, and a pointer to get_release for full details. Annotation provides additional safety context (read-only), and the schema covers parameters fully. No gaps are evident.

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 schema already documents both parameters (project and limit) with examples and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the newest N reviewed releases with a specific set of summary fields, and it is explicitly contrasted with list_changes, which walks oldest-first. It states the verb 'list' and the resource 'releases', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It specifies when to use this tool ('recent releases of X' / 'what changed in X lately') and explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool list_changes, which is oldest-first by seq, providing a clear alternative and exclusion.

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