list_releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, each row carries rollback availability and expiry, and the call requires the apps:read scope.

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?

A single dense sentence with the returned fields enumerated inline and the pagination cap and scope parenthesized at the end. No filler, and the identity of the tool is established immediately.

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, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned fields, including nested rollback.available/rollback.expires_at. Only minor gaps remain: no pagination guidance for `page` and no handling of the optional workspace_id parameter.

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 75% (id, limit, workspace_id documented; page undocumented), so a baseline of 3 applies. The description's only parameter detail — 'limit goes up to 50' — merely repeats the schema's maximum and default-20 note, adding no new 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?

Names a specific resource (the application's releases/versions) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (source, status, commit/upload message, author, rollback availability). That is far more than a restatement of the name, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from near-siblings like list_deploys or get_release_log.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is how to enumerate an app's releases, but there is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the boundary versus list_deploys or get_release_log. The added `(scope: apps:read)` note signals auth context but not selection criteria.

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