list_deployment_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: results are paginated via a cursor and the output is auto-stored as an object with a preview ID. However, it omits ordering, page-size limits, and permission requirements.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Sphinx-style param lines duplicate the schema and the four lines of object-store boilerplate add notable length. Structure is reasonable but not tight.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers both parameters, the paginated return shape, and the object-store handoff mechanism. It is largely complete for a two-parameter list tool, missing only ordering and permission details.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both parameters meaningfully ('ID of the deployment', 'cursor to fetch the next page'). It adds the needed semantics the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('revisions of a deployment') and expands it concretely as 'the history of pipeline configurations it has served.' This cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_deployment_revision and the related create/activate revision tools.

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?

Usage is implied through the pagination cursor note and the object-store instructions, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_deployment_revision or list_deployments, nor any prerequisites. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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