get_recent_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read-only historical retrieval operation scoped by namespace and time, but it does not disclose the response format, ordering, or possible failure/edge-case behavior. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose, time scope, and a use case appear in the first two sentences. The Arg section is minimal and directly maps to the schema. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with defaults on both parameters, the description covers invocation correctly. However, there is no output schema, no annotation context, and no mention of what a 'deployment change' looks like in the response. It could also point to siblings like get_k8s_events or get_resource_history when a broader history is needed.

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%, but the description's Args section documents both parameters: namespace means 'Kuber...' — well, it says 'Kubernetes namespace,' and timeframe_minutes has a range ('1-1440'). This meaningfully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions, though the namespace definition is thin.

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 operation — 'Get recent Kubernetes deployment changes' — with an explicit time scope ('last N minutes') and a use case ('correlating deployments with incidents'). It is clearly a retrieval tool for deployment history, but it doesn't name a sibling to contrast against.

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 explicitly says it is 'Useful for correlating deployments with incidents,' giving an agent a concrete condition for selecting this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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