getDeploymentEvents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states the tool 'gets' events, implying a read operation, but doesn't describe what format the events come in, whether there's pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the potential confusion around 'build ID' versus the actual 'builds' parameter slightly reduces the effectiveness of this 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'deployment events' actually are, what format they return in, or how the various filtering parameters interact. The mention of 'build ID' that doesn't correspond to a schema parameter creates confusion. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured output information, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description mentions 'deployment ID and build ID', but 'build ID' doesn't match the schema's 'builds' parameter (which is described as 'Builds parameter' with no further clarification). This creates confusion rather than adding value. The description doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's already 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 states the tool 'gets deployment events by deployment ID and build ID', which provides a clear verb ('gets') and resource ('deployment events'). However, it mentions 'build ID' which doesn't correspond to any parameter in the schema (the schema has 'builds' as a number parameter, not 'build ID'), creating potential confusion. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getDeployment' or explain what makes 'events' different from general deployment information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to deployments (getDeployment, getDeployments, listDeploymentFiles), but the description doesn't explain when an agent should choose this specific events-focused tool over those other options. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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