Get deploy history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the kind of data returned (deploy/build history and replica status), but does not disclose output shape, pagination, data freshness, or any limitations—making this acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the intended use and the scope. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant wording 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 relatively simple read-only tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the data area. Minor gaps exist around output format and what 'recent' means, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two required parameters, project and service. It only indicates that the tool operates on 'a Lizard service,' which gives partial context for service but leaves project unexplained and does not clarify accepted value formats or relationships between parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('see') and identifies the exact resource: 'recent deploy/build history and current replica status for a Lizard service.' It clearly distinguishes this read-oriented tool from sibling mutation tools like deploy_redeploy and deploy_restart by emphasizing history and status viewing.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants to see recent deploy/build history and current replica status.' It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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