get_rollout_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content (revisions with diffs) but does not disclose ordering, history depth, default limits, namespace requirements, or whether any cluster access or side effects are involved.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and content, and the second gives a concrete usage question. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and limited parameter descriptions, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. Important details such as default limit behavior, ordering, return format, and how deployment/namespace should be supplied are missing, and the schema's namespace note hints at a required-but-optional inconsistency.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no meaningful explanation for deployment or limit beyond what the schema already states. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving two parameters essentially undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (deployment revisions) and the question it answers ('what changed in the last deploy?'). It is distinct in intent from other siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from the similarly named what_changed sibling.

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 phrase 'Answers what changed in the last deploy?' implies a clear use case for this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as what_changed.

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