deployado_list_releases

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

Annotations already declare it a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, and the description complements this by enumerating the release status values (queued, pending, building, ready, failed), which is real behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey. Since there is no output schema, this return-value context is the main place that information can live. It does not state ordering or whether all releases or only recent ones are returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the status vocabulary, then a routing pointer. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is padded.

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 usefully covers what comes back (versions, build status and its possible values). What it omits is the sort/recency behavior of the listing and what happens with an invalid app_id, which matter for a paged 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (app_id UUID, limit default 10 / max 50) are documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about app_id format or limit behavior beyond what the schema already says; the release_id mention refers to a sibling tool's parameter.

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 and resource, "List available releases for an app," plus the fields returned (version history, build status). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like deployado_get_release or deployado_list_deployments, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 final sentence gives explicit routing: use deployado_get_build_logs with a release_id to see build output, which cleanly separates this listing tool from log retrieval. It offers no guidance on when to prefer deployado_get_release or deployado_list_deployments, so the sibling disambiguation is incomplete.

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