list_deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the ordering behavior ("newest first"); it says nothing about default result volume, the implicit time window, or pagination/truncation behavior an agent would want before relying on completeness.

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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with four entirely undocumented parameters and only a vague "recent" scope, the description is thin for a filtering tool; an agent cannot tell what the default query actually returns.

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% across four parameters (limit, since, account_ids, entity_guid), so the description carries the full burden. It only implies "recent" via prose and never explains the since default of 7 days, the limit range of 1-200, or that account_ids/entity_guid filter scope, leaving all four parameters semantically thin.

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 and resource ("List recent deployments") plus a result-ordering detail ("newest first"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from, relying on the contextual hint about traces to imply its place in the workflow.

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?

"Use this to check whether an incident lines up with a release before digging into traces" gives a concrete investigative trigger for calling the tool, which is good workflow context. It stops short of naming the alternative trace tools (get_trace) or stating when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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