list_releases

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

Beyond the readOnly flag, the description discloses return shape ('eras array', 'pagination holding real total', no top-level count or data flag) and flags an important domain nuance about release status being SET BY A PERSON and potentially inconsistent with aggregate stats. This directly prevents an agent from misinterpreting the aggregated data.

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 compact and front-loaded; the first sentence states the core purpose, the second sets expectations about the return shape, and the third adds routing and filtering context. Every sentence supplies meaningful information with no fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the top-level return structure and the pagination format, so the agent knows how to parse results. Combined with the detailed input schema, it is sufficient to call the tool correctly and understand how its results differ from related tools.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for every parameter, including status vocabulary and rejection behavior. The description adds little about the parameters themselves beyond saying filtering by status and search is supported, so it stays at the baseline for high 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?

Description states a clear verb ('List') and target ('releases for a project'), and specifies it returns aggregated stats for manual tests and automated rseats. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_release by noting get_release is for when a single flag id exists and linked executions or launches are needed.

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 final sentence gives an explicit rule: use get_flag when you have one id and need its linked executions and launches, implying list_releases is for the broader project-level list. It also names possible returns/filtering ('by status and search') so an flag can decide this is the right entry point.

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