Get Deployment History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds context about the API used and the returned fields, but doesn't go into details like permissions or data freshness. Minor inconsistencies (default values, status enums) slightly muddy the behavioral picture.

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?

Description is tightly structured: purpose sentence, parameter explanations, and return summary. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only history tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return fields. However, the inconsistencies in defaults and status enums leave room for confusion, and it doesn't mention ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions; the description adds a max limit for 'limit' and provides human-readable status options. However, the description's default for limit (20) contradicts the schema's default (10), and the status lists differ ('Canceled' vs 'Canceling'), which undermines parameter clarity.

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 tool as retrieving deployment history using the Tooling API DeployRequest object, and lists what it shows (status, component counts, test results, error messages). It distinguishes itself from related tools like sf_deploy_metadata and sf_check_deploy_status by focusing on historical retrieval.

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 implies its use for reviewing recent deployments but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like sf_check_deploy_status or sf_deploy_metadata. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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