get_deployments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention performance (e.g., whether it returns all history at once or paginates), required permissions, or side effects. A read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is too brief to provide meaningful guidance. While concise, it sacrifices informative detail.

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 lack of output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, whether pagination is supported, or how to interpret the history.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('project_id') with no description, and the tool description adds no additional context about the parameter's format, source, or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('deployment history'), and identifies the scope ('for a project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deploy_project' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation, but does not differentiate from other read tools like 'get_project' or 'get_publish_status'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'deploy_project' or 'list_projects'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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