list_releases

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a read-like operation (listing releases), describes output fields (version, date, coverage, fact counts, severity), and even explains the meaning of 'facts_total=0 with coverage=full_reviewed' as routine auditable silence. The only minor omission is mention of authentication or rate limits, but for most contexts this is sufficient.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: overview, usage guidance, ordering clarification, edge-case explanation, and drill-down suggestion. No filler. Well-structured and appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool (two parameters).

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (light summaries with key fields) and includes an important edge case (zero facts with full reviewed). It also references sibling tools (list_facts, get_release) to provide integration context. This is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default (5) and max (20) for 'limit', and notes that 'project' is a slug like 'istio'. It also implies that the parameters control the scope of releases returned. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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?

Purpose is crystal clear: 'list_releases' lists recent releases with light summaries. The description specifies verb+resource ('list releases of one project') and distinguishes it from sibling 'list_facts' by noting the different ordering (newest first vs oldest-analyzed first). This is a specific, actionable description.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'THE tool for recent releases of X / what changed in X lately'. Contrasts with list_facts (oldest-first ordering) and points to get_release for drilling into full details. No ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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