get_deployment_revision_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates the action is to 'List', which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose details such as ordering, pagination, permissions, or side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name, but is not misleading.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

While an output schema exists and likely covers return values, the description still needs to provide context for tool selection and input understanding. It provides no parameter semantics or behavioral details, making it only minimally adequate for a simple list operation. The presence of a required 'name' parameter is not even implied in the description.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (name, namespace, cluster_alias). It fails to explain how these parameters are used or relate to the Deployment, leaving the agent to rely solely on the unhelpful property names in the schema.

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 lists revision history (ReplicaSets) for a Deployment. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('revision history') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deployment or rollout_restart.

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 usage: you would use this tool when you need the revision history of a Deployment. However, it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer its context from the purpose alone.

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