rollout_status

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

Explicitly marked as read-only with '[READ]' and lists returned fields. Since no annotations are provided, this description adequately discloses behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication or permissions, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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?

Extremely concise, front-loaded with purpose, and parameter explanations are efficiently integrated. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description lists what is returned (desired/updated/available/unavailable + paused), which is sufficient for a status check tool. However, more detail on format might be helpful but not necessary.

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?

Parameter descriptions add meaning beyond the schema: 'Deployment name', 'Namespace; omit for the target's default namespace', 'k8s target name from config'. Schema coverage is 0% so description compensates well.

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?

Description starts with '[READ] Rollout status: desired/updated/available/unavailable + paused', clearly identifying it as a read operation and listing the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rollout_history, rollout_pause, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like rollout_history or rollout_resume. The description only explains arguments without context for selection.

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