list_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the default omission of release body, strict-after filtering semantics, the scan ceiling of 100 releases when filtering, and the interaction between limit and published_after. This goes well beyond the schema and provides meaningful behavioral expectations.

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 information-dense but well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by focused parameter behavior notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important facts are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with non-obvious interactions.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key contextual aspects: ordering, defaults, filtering semantics, and performance ceiling. It also ties the scan limit to a sibling tool (compare_releases), making the behavior easier to reason about. No significant gaps remain.

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 compensate, and it does comprehensively. It explains the repo format, the purpose and conditions for include_body, the ISO-8601 format and strict-after behavior of published_after, and how limit caps results while the server scans up to 100 records. Every parameter is given semantic meaning beyond its raw type/default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List recent releases for one repo (newest first)') and clarifies the repo format as 'owner/name'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos (which lists repos) and get_release (which likely targets a single release).

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use optional parameters, e.g., 'pass include_body=True only when you need the notes text' and explains the behavior of published_after and limit. It references compare_releases for the scanning ceiling, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_release or get_latest_version, so it stops short of full alternative-based guidance.

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