deploy_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool is read-only ('fetch') and describes the output (same DeployEvent shapes), but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with a dash to separate main purpose from usage context. Front-loaded and efficient, 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?

The description covers the return format (same DeployEvent shapes) in lieu of an output schema. It provides enough context for a retrieval tool, though missing pagination or error handling details. Sufficient for the complexity.

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 100% and the description repeats schema details. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (fetch) and resource (recorded phase-event stream for a deploy operation). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns the same shapes as the deploy tool, which is unique for post-deploy inspection.

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 clear use cases: inspecting a deploy after the fact, for deploys the agent didn't observe directly, or resumed from another process. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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