Log wdrozenia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds default-behavior context ('Bez argumentu deployment bierze ostatnie wdrożenie') and a diagnostic use case, but this largely repeats what the schema already documents for the deployment parameter. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed directly by the most important default behavior and primary use case. This is an appropriately sized description.

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 log retrieval tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the main use case and default behavior, though it does not mention the lines parameter or how output is returned; these are either covered by the schema or reasonably implied by 'pełne wyjście'.

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 100%, and parameter descriptions already explain defaults and meanings (e.g., deployment defaults to latest, lines defaults to 300, org defaults to server config). The tool description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Pobiera' (retrieves) and the resource 'pełne wyjście wdrożenia' (full deployment output), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like forge_deployment_status or forge_get_deployment_script. However, it does not explicitly name or compare against those siblings, so differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 gives a clear use case: diagnosing a failed deploy, and explains that omitting the deployment argument selects the latest deployment, which is the most common scenario. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like forge_deployment_status, but the context is specific enough for an agent to understand when this tool is relevant.

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