get_deployed_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates that the tool returns runtime data but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any rate limits. It is adequate but minimally transparent beyond stating the output.

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 concise with two main sentences plus a list of use cases. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids verbosity. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data types but lacks details on pagination behavior (beyond schema) and result structure. It is minimally complete for the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the overall purpose. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide examples, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('runtime/deployed objects'). It further elaborates on what is returned (deployment status, runtime metrics, execution history, performance statistics) and lists use cases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_asset_details' which focus on non-runtime aspects.

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 use cases for monitoring and analysis (monitoring deployed assets, tracking execution status, analyzing runtime performance). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which slightly reduces guidance.

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