ispw_list_releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the domain semantics of a release ('collections of assignments for coordinated deployment') and by stating that the result is either a formatted list or an error message. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the release definition follows as useful context. The Google-style 'Args:'/'Returns:' scaffolding restates container details ('Validated input parameters containing:') that add little, but the examples earn their space, so waste is minor.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return fields, and it appropriately just notes 'formatted list or error message.' With one required wrapper object containing three documented fields, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly; only the meaning of SRID remains thin.

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?

Measured schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does document all three fields (srid, release_id, response_format) with defaults and worked examples. The weak spot is that 'srid' is only glossed as 'System Resource Identifier' — the acronym expanded but not explained — and the markdown/json choice is only noted for its default, not its effect on output shape.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('List ISPW releases') plus the scoping key (SRID), so intent is unambiguous. It also defines what a release is, which helps disambiguate from siblings like ispw_list_assignments. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with ispw_get_release (single-release retrieval), which would have earned a 5.

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?

Two concrete call patterns are given ('List all releases: srid="ISPW"' and 'Find specific release: srid="ISPW", release_id="REL001"'), making the when-to-use condition between full listing and filtering explicit. There is no exclusion guidance such as 'use ispw_get_release when you need details of one release,' so the alternative-routing bar for a 5 is not met.

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