get_deployment_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'newest first' discloses ordering. However, it does not disclose whether transitions include all types, how the limit parameter affects behavior, or any prerequisites. This is moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 with no redundant words. It conveys the action, resource, and ordering efficiently.

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 an output schema exists, return values are already specified. The description covers the core purpose and resource, and mentions ordering. It could be more complete by explaining limit behavior, but for a simple list operation it is largely sufficient.

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. It implicitly explains model_name as the model to retrieve history for, but it does not explain the limit parameter. The description adds some meaning but not complete compensation for both 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 clearly states the tool lists recent deployments/version transitions for a model, with an explicit ordering of newest first. This distinguishes it from siblings like propose_rollback or diff_deployments, which target different operations.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve deployment history for a model. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and the verb 'list' provide adequate contextual guidance.

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