get_deploys

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

Annotations already declare read-only, and the description adds value by specifying the ordering (newest first) and the behavioral effect of omitting `service` (fleet-wide). It does not describe the time-based filtering or return format, but for a read-only history tool, this is reasonable coverage beyond annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second provides a critical parameter hint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or restating of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and fleet scoping, and the output schema handles return values. However, it entirely omits the time-filter parameter (`since_minutes`), leaving agents unaware of the default 24-hour window or how to filter by time. Given the tool's simplicity, this gap is noticeable but not fatal.

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 descriptions are 0% for both parameters. The description explains `service` by indicating how to use it for fleet-wide results, but it says nothing about `since_minutes`, which the schema only defines with type and constraints. The name 'since_minutes' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for all parameters.

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: retrieving deploy history, ordered newest first. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on deploys and mentioning the 'whole fleet' scope, which aligns with the tool's name and differentiates it from services, logs, metrics, and incidents.

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?

Provides direct guidance on using the `service` parameter: omit it for the whole fleet. This clarifies a key usage decision. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this instead of sibling tools like `correlate_deploy_with_errors`, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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