google_list_release_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the filtering behavior (obsolete releases excluded), the state set returned, and the post-commit precondition, but says nothing about the read-only guarantee, auth/permission needs, or behavior when no edit has been committed.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the resource, the filter, and the timing precondition are all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (lifecycle states) and the key precondition (committed edit). The remaining gaps are minor since there are no annotations to reconcile against.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters (packageName, track) are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly references the track parameter ('for a track') and adds no format or validation guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource: non-obsolete releases and their review/publishing lifecycle states, scoped to a single track. The 'non-obsolete' qualifier and 'after an edit is committed' precondition differentiate it from google_list_tracks / google_get_track without naming them explicitly.

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 phrase 'after an edit is committed' states a clear precondition for when the tool is meaningful, which is real usage context an agent would otherwise have to guess. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use google_get_track for track config), so it isn't a full when/when-not guide.

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