deployment_status

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

The description labels the tool as '[READ]', indicating idempotent and safe behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it could be more explicit about potential errors, permissions, or limitations. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise: a single-line header followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose text. The structure makes it easy for an AI to parse and understand quickly.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all parameter meanings and specifies the return values (status and replica counts). It lacks details on output format or error cases, but for invocation and selection, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden for explaining parameters. It adds valuable context: application is a name from serve_deployment_list, deployment is within the app, and target is optional from config. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it is a read operation ('[READ]') and specifies that it retrieves 'status + current/target replica count' for a single deployment. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like replica_restart or deployment_redeploy, which involve mutations.

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 explicit context for each parameter, explaining that application comes from serve_deployment_list and target is optional from config. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the read nature and focus on a single deployment imply its use case clearly.

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