list_releases

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the useful ordering guarantee 'newest first', but does not disclose pagination behavior or other nuances; the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the ordering detail is efficiently appended.

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 read-only list endpoint with an output schema and self-explanatory parameter names, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks routing context relative to get_release and explicit pagination notes, leaving a few gaps for the agent to infer.

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 only 25%, with only per_page documented. The description implies repo_owner and repo_name identify the repository, but it does not explain page behavior or other parameter semantics, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states the verb 'Lists', the resource 'a repository's releases', and the ordering 'newest first', making it immediately clear this is the collection counterpart to get_release. It distinguishes from mutation tools like create_release/delete_release, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 given for when to use this tool versus get_release, list_tags, or release-related mutations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints, so usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and resource type.

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