liara_list_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), pagination behavior (despite parameters like 'page' and 'perPage'), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, release fields), pagination defaults, error cases, or how it fits into the broader release management workflow, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'appName' is required (stated in schema) and that releases are scoped to an app. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'page' vs 'offset'), keeping it at the baseline.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('releases for an app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'liara_get_release' (singular) and 'liara_deploy_release' (action), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'liara_list_apps'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'liara_get_release' for single releases or 'liara_list_apps' for broader context.

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