get_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the phrase 'get recent deployments,' it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, pagination, time ranges, or what 'recent' means. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters, though it could have incorporated usage or behavioral hints without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is not complete. It lacks any usage context or behavioral detail that would help an agent decide when to call it. The phrase 'recent deployments' is ambiguous, and without pruning criteria or pagination information, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior. This is a minimal viable description at best.

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%: both limit and entity_guid have explicit descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it does not elevate the value. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra parameter insights are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('deployments') scoped to an APM application entity, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alert_conditions or get_throughput_timeseries. It is not a tautology and clearly communicates what the tool retrieves. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it misses a full distinguishing statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate. With siblings like search_entities and get_entity, the agent is left to infer when to call get_deployments, so this dimension is weak.

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