list_releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is fully covered. The description adds only the mild reinforcement "without opening an edit" and the "allowed" permission cue; it says nothing about rate limits, result shape, or what an unauthorized app returns.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the missing parameter and usage guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage routing, the definition leaves real gaps an agent would need the schema to fill.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only echoes "app/track" and never explains that the required input is a package identifier or that "track" defaults to production. The required vs optional distinction is left entirely to 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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("release lifecycle states"), scoped to an app/track. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_reviews, but those cover unrelated domains so confusion is unlikely. It is clear but stops short of naming where release data comes from.

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?

"for an allowed app/track" hints at a permission precondition but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the read path versus whatever edit flow "opening an edit" refers to.

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