deployment_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'recent deployments' and 'monitoring service updates' which imply read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read operation, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned (pagination, format). It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure 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 with clear sections (purpose, best for, prerequisites, next steps, related tools). Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sections provide valuable guidance without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and relationships with other tools. The main gap is lack of output information (what the deployment list looks like), but given this is a list operation with clear sibling tools, it's reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain environmentId from service_list, though the schema hints at this). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent deployments for a service in a specific environment'). It distinguishes from siblings like deployment_logs (which shows logs) and deployment_trigger (which initiates deployments) by focusing on listing deployment history.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' section listing specific use cases (viewing deployment history, monitoring service updates), prerequisites (service_list), next steps (deployment_logs, deployment_trigger), and related tools (service_info, service_restart). This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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