is_ticket_deployed

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the classification rule for frontend vs backend, the ancestor-of-deployed-branch check tied to Jenkins build type, per-MR reporting, the aggregate 'deployed' rule, and separate handling for unmerged MRs. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a compact bulleted breakdown. Every bullet adds a distinct behavioral or semantic fact, with no redundant or filler content for a tool with this much internal logic.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of covering return semantics: per-MR deployed=true/false with reasons, unmerged MRs reported separately, and the overall ticket criterion. It lacks explicit parameter examples and does not state prerequisites or error behavior, which keeps it just short of complete.

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. It indirectly defines environment via 'dev or stage' and uses `<env>` in build-name templates, and it clarifies that ticket_url identifies the ticket whose merged MRs are examined. However, it never gives the exact expected URL/format or a formal enum for environment, so compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Verify whether a ticket's merged MRs are deployed on dev or stage.' It also goes further to define exactly what 'deployed' means, distinguishing the tool from siblings like get_ticket_mrs (which returns MRs) and is_deployed_since (a time-based check).

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 context for use is clear: call this when you need a ticket-level deployment verdict covering all merged MRs. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the detailed coverage criteria make the intended usage unambiguous, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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