Get deploy history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by disclosing what is returned (deploy/build history plus current replica status), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not say how far back 'recent' goes or whether results are limited/paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the usage trigger first and the payload second. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, it conveys the job and the return content adequately. The missing piece is parameter meaning (what 'project'/'service' identifiers look like) and any notion of result window or size.

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% and both parameters (project, service) are required but never mentioned. The phrase 'for a Lizard service' vaguely hints at the service param, but project is entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('see') and two concrete resources: deploy/build history and replica status for a Lizard service. It is clearly a read operation, distinguishing it implicitly from deploy_redeploy/deploy_restart, though it never names those siblings.

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 opening 'Use this when the user wants to see...' gives an explicit trigger condition. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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