deployment_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the '[READ]' tag while adding genuine value beyond the annotation: it discloses what fields come back (status plus current/target replica counts) and where the 'application' identifier originates. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a simple read tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a tight Args block; every line conveys a distinct piece of information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does mention status and replica counts, though it doesn't enumerate possible status values. For a three-parameter read-only lookup whose safety profile is already in annotations, this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so well: it labels 'application' as a Serve application name and points to serve_deployment_list, identifies 'deployment' as the deployment within that application, and explains 'target' as an inference target from config with the default behavior when omitted. Only the exact expected string formats are left unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One deployment's status') and names the returned fields (status, current/target replica count), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also ties itself to serve_deployment_list as the source of application names, which hints at differentiation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deployment tools like deployment_redeploy.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the '[READ]' tag and the reference to serve_deployment_list suggest this is the inspection step in a deploy/status workflow, and 'omit for the default' clarifies the optional target. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance.

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