Get deployment events

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description adds value by revealing behavior beyond that: the log is ordered newest-first and includes scheduler lifecycle and error events. There is no contradiction with the 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?

One short is sentence that puts the core concept first, then adds selective examples and ordering. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a simple read-only event listing, the description plus the schema and annotations cover the essential facts: what is returned, the order, the required parameter, and the optional limit with defaults. It is slightly incomplete only in that limit is not semantically described, but overall it is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate. It only indirectly implies deployment_id by saying 'for a deployment', and it says nothing about the limit parameter, its default, or its purpose. The schema provides type/constraints but not semantics, so this is a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Scheduler event log for a deployment', and clarifies the content by listing example event kinds ('job listed, stopped, errors such as insufficient funds or bad timeout'). The 'Newest first' ordering also helps distinguish it from tools that return deployment state. This clearly differentiates it from get_deployment and get_job_result.

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 implies this is the tool to use when an agent needs a deployment's event history, and gives an idea of what those events include. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or whether get_job_result or get_deployment would be more appropriate for specific needs.

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