list_releases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List releases', implying a read operation, but it doesn't mention whether prereleases/drafts are included, how pagination behaves, or any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure beyond what the name conveys.

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 words. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though it is sparse. The brevity is not a flaw in itself, but the content is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide richer context. It fails to mention pagination, filtering (e.g., prereleases), or ordering behavior. For a list tool with four parameters, this is incomplete and leaves the agent unsure of expected response structure and edge cases.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds only 'for a repository', which clarifies that owner/repo identify the target repository. However, page and per_page are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 'List releases for a repository' clearly states a specific verb (List) and resource (releases for a repository). It distinguishes from siblings like get_latest_release by using the plural 'releases', but it doesn't explicitly name any alternative or clarify the exact scope beyond the repository.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_release or list_tags. The description simply states what it does without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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