List releases

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that results are 'Cached for an hour', names the upstream source URL, and discloses envelope fields including truncated and error signals. It doesn't discuss rate limits or behaviour when the upstream fetch fails, but the caching and error-field disclosure go meaningfully beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentences, resource and source front-loaded, with the response envelope listed inline rather than prose-padded. The key enumeration is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the envelope fields including truncated and error. Caching and source are covered; the only gap is how limit and tag interact, which is minor for a read-only listing 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only adds the passing notion that a tag returns a single version rather than a list. The limit parameter and the interaction between tag and limit are not addressed, so the description does not materially exceed 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Published Reelsaw versions from GitHub') and immediately enumerates the fields returned (tag, date, summary, change notes), so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It is clearly distinct from app-update siblings like check_for_update because it names the release source and URL.

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 clause 'pass tag for one version' gives implicit guidance on how to narrow the call, and 'newest first' in the schema implies the default listing behaviour. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison to the nearest sibling, check_for_update, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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