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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining that the status is refreshed from the runtime provider while the build is in progress. It also discloses the full set of statuses and the log-inclusion behavior, which helps the agent understand what to expect and when to act.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core behavior and status list in the first sentence. Every clause earns its place: refresh behavior, status enumeration, polling guidance, and log usage instructions. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return concept, the status vocabulary, the log behavior, and the polling context. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention how to obtain the deploymentId, what poll interval to use, or the shape of the log lines, but these are minor given the otherwise rich annotations and schema.

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 75%, so most parameters already carry documentation. The description adds useful semantics for includeLogs by calling the logs 'normalised' and advising use after failure, but it does not clarify how to obtain or format deploymentId, which lacks a schema description beyond its UUID pattern.

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 'Returns a deployment's current status' with a specific verb and resource, and goes beyond the title by detailing the refresh behavior and enumerating the possible statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like springroll.deploy.promote and springroll.deploy, which are about action rather than observation.

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 explicit usage context: 'Poll this after deploying rather than assuming success' and advises passing includeLogs when the status is FAILED. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage direction is clear and actionable.

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