deploy_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by describing it as 'fetching' but does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent behavior. It mentions the return type but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or auth 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 description is two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action, the second adds context and use cases. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple fetch operation. It explains the purpose and when to use it. However, it does not describe error handling, pagination, or the exact structure of returned events (though it references `DeployEvent` shapes). Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema; for example, it repeats that `operation_id` is from a prior `deploy` call, which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch the recorded phase-event stream for a deploy operation' and distinguishes it from the `deploy` tool by noting it is for after-the-fact inspection. It includes specific use cases (unobserved or resumed from different process), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (for inspecting a deploy after the fact, e.g., unobserved or resumed from a different process). It differentiates from the `deploy` tool which emits events inline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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