list_releases

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It does this by mentioning the inclusion of aggregated stats and support for status/search filtering, which helps set expectations beyond a plain list.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and additional capabilities are stated efficiently.

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 six-parameter listing tool with fully described schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and main filtering capabilities. It does not describe pagination semantics, but those are already present in the schema, so the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented structurally. The description adds only high-level information about status and search filtering, which does not exceed what the schema already provides; therefore, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists releases for a project and includes a specific scope: aggregated stats for manual tests and automated launches. The verb 'List' plus the resource 'releases' is specific and differentiates it from single-resource tools like get_release.

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 conveys when to use it: to get a project's releases together with aggregated stats and filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer list_releases is the right choice for a collection-oriented, filtered request.

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