list_deployment_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as whether results are paginated, sorted, or if there are any side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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, concise sentence that captures the essence. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability for complex usage. It is efficient but minimal.

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 is a list operation with no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the return format (e.g., fields included, ordering). It adequately conveys the purpose but leaves out details that would help an agent understand the output structure.

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 coverage is 50%; only 'days' has a description ('Look-back period (default 30)'). The 'limit' parameter lacks any description. The tool description mentions 'over time' but does not clarify the 'days' or 'limit' parameters beyond what is in the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 what the tool does: 'List deployment history — committed update sets and app installs over time'. It specifies the resource (deployment history) and the scope (committed update sets and app installs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_deployments' or 'get_deployment'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or compare it to similar tools such as 'list_deployments' or 'list_changesets'. The agent must 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.