Historia wdrozen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned output fields (status, start/end times) and that only recent deployments are returned, but it does not explain ordering, limits, pagination, or what 'recent' means.

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 filler. It conveys the resource, action, and output fields efficiently, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter, read-only list operation with a well-covered schema, so the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of detail about result limits or ordering, but no output schema exists and the description already tells the agent what the response will contain.

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%, with both 'org' and 'site' documented directly in the input schema. The tool description does not add new parameter details beyond echoing 'site', so it provides no meaning beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Wypisuje' – lists) and resource ('ostatnie wdrożenia site' – recent deployments for a site), and specifies returned fields: status, start time, and end time. It is clearly not a single-deployment lookup like forge_deployment_status, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling 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?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as forge_deployment_status or forge_get_deployment_log. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage solely from the verb and resource.

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