ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_deploy_history

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation and adds project scoping. It does not describe pagination behavior, response structure, or any operational side effects, but the annotation already covers safety. This adds some value beyond the annotation but is not rich.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and object ('deployment history list'). It contains no filler and is immediately understandable.

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 tool's simplicity, complete parameter schema, and read-only annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not describe the return fields or pagination details, but the phrase 'deployment history list' implies the response shape, and the schema handles pagination parameters.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (projectId, pageNo, pageSize), so the description need not repeat them. However, it adds no extra semantic context about how the parameters relate to the returned history or why pageSize has a maximum of 100.

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 ('Get') and resource ('deployment history list') scoped to a project. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_deploy_history_detail (which retrieves a single history entry) and other sourcedeploy list tools.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a projectId from a list projects call). The usage context is only implicit from the name and description.

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