list_releases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It only restates the listing action and does not disclose pagination, default ordering, the read-only nature of the call, or what the response contains. The word 'all' may even mislead because the API returns one page at a time by default.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly too sparse to earn a 5, but it is not bloated or repetitive.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves important context uncovered: it does not mention that results are paginated, that project_id is central to the call, or what a successful response looks like. The schema covers parameters, but the description alone does not give an agent enough context to confidently invoke the 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%, so the input schema fully documents all six parameters including defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all releases for a project'), which distinguishes it from singular get_release and mutation tools like create_release. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, and 'all' is slightly misleading given the paginated default behavior.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_release, create_release, or delete_release. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving usage entirely implied by the tool name.

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