github_actions_get_pending_deployments_for_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this operation is read-only (implied), what permissions are needed, or what the response format looks like. Minimal transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous information. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

Lacks output schema, no annotations, and no elaboration on the importance of pending deployments in workflow runs. Given the complexity of GitHub Actions and many sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters described), but the parameter descriptions are minimal (just 'owner', 'repo', 'run_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'get', the resource 'pending deployments', and the context 'for a workflow run'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'github_actions_review_pending_deployments_for_run', which is about reviewing, not just fetching.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'github_actions_get_reviews_for_run'). Lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this should not be used.

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