List releases with current health verdicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the verdict is server-side computed and advises not to recompute from rates. It also mentions pagination behavior. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only nature, but the context implies read-only.

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 concise (5 sentences) with a front-loaded core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavioral note, filtering, pagination, alternatives. No redundancy.

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 6 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most aspects: purpose, when to use, params (most), pagination, and alternatives. It lacks explicit description of the output format (e.g., pagination object shape) but mentions pagination cursor, which implies structure. Minor gap.

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 50% (3 of 6 params documented). The description adds some meaning: it lists filter options (platform, channel, status) and explains that status='active' means deployed to production, and mentions cursor usage. However, it does not explicitly address environment_id or provide format details for enum params beyond what schema offers. Partial compensation.

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 tool lists releases with current health verdicts and rates, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming release_health and release_regressions as alternatives for different needs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (e.g., to get current health verdicts) and when to use alternatives (release_health for breakdown, release_regressions for regressions). Also explains pagination and filter options.

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