list_deployment_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or error conditions. The return format is briefly described but lacks details on structure or potential edge cases, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating key parameter details into the opening sentence for faster scanning.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters reasonably well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and detailed return format. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on error handling or result interpretation would improve completeness for a read operation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'repo_slug' is a repository slug, 'environment_uuid' comes from 'list_environments', and 'limit' defaults to 20 and controls result count. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure) or validation rules.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get deployment history for a specific environment.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment history'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_environments' by focusing on deployment history rather than environments themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'list_commits' beyond the resource name.

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 provides implied usage context by mentioning that 'environment_uuid' comes from 'list_environments', suggesting a workflow dependency. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_pipelines' for pipeline history or 'get_commit' for commit details), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the parameter hints.

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