list_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering ('most recent first') and basic filters, but omits crucial behavioral traits: pagination behavior (default limit, result count), authentication/team scoping, error handling, empty result behavior, or rate limits. A listing tool with 9 parameters needs richer disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: first states the primary function and ordering, second lists main filters and use case. Excellent 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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return structure, pagination controls (beyond 'limit'), default behavior, team scoping nuances (teamId vs slug), or error conditions. A more complete description would address these for effective autonomous 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?

Schema has 100% coverage with inline descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description's mention of filters ('project, target, state, or time window') adds minimal extra value—it paraphrases but does not clarify data types, formats, or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly aid parameter understanding beyond 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 deployments in descending chronological order, specifies key filters (project, target, state, time window), and explicitly states its use case: 'see deploy history and find a deployment id.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_deployment (single) or cancel_deployment (mutation).

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?

It provides explicit use context: 'Use this to see deploy history and find a deployment id.' This implies it is appropriate for enumeration, not for modifying or retrieving a single deployment. While it lacks explicit contraindications, the positive guidance is clear enough.

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