list_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool lists releases and returns specific fields, and implies pagination behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it mention any auth or rate-limit considerations. It is adequate but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: the first states the action, the second enumerates the returned fields, and the third provides context and an alternative. No wasted words.

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 list tool with comprehensive schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains what releases are, what fields are returned, and that pagination is supported. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of returned fields. It could arguably mention the page/size defaults, but the schema already provides those.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including defaults and ranges. The description only adds the generic concept of pagination, which matches the page and size parameters but doesn't contribute additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List releases of a GitFlic project') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that get_release and get_latest_release provide full details, while this tool returns a paginated list.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (when a paginated list of basic release info is needed) and explicitly points to alternatives (get_release/get_latest_release for full details). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool.

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