is_deployed_since

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core comparison semantics and the accepted ISO 8601 forms, but it does not state the return type/boolean result, behavior when no successful build exists, or whether this is strictly 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, and the two follow-up sentences add the intended use case and timestamp format. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple predicate tool, but incomplete around edge cases: return format is not described (no output schema), and there is no guidance on nonexistent jobs or missing successful builds. It also does not mention whether job_name must be pre-resolved via resolve_job_name.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: merge_time_iso is explained as an ISO 8601 timestamp with concrete examples, and job_name is tied to the job whose last successful build is checked. It leaves job_name identification implicit but is sufficient for a two-parameter tool.

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 a specific predicate: it checks whether a job's last successful build ran after a supplied ISO timestamp. It names the resource and the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like is_ticket_deployed or get_last_successful_build.

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?

It includes an explicit intended use case ('was this GitLab MR deployed?') that tells an agent when this check is relevant. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for similar ticket or deployment checks.

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