List installed releases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior and clarifies that install/rollback is deliberately unavailable, which is valuable transparency. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple read-only list tool these are less critical.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the read-only safety note and a pointer to the excluded functionality. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns (installed releases and the active/golden one). The read-only and exclusion notes round out the context. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. There is no parameter meaning to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed daemon releases'), and adds the distinct detail of identifying which release is active/golden. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which mention release listing.

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 read-only note and the explicit statement that installing/rolling back is not exposed give some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like duck_version or duck_health. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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