list_workflow_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('list') but does not confirm safety, required permissions, or rate limits. The description lacks details on side effects or execution constraints.

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 very concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args block. It includes only necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite adequate parameter semantics, the description does not mention return format, pagination, or output structure. Since there is no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the result, reducing completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all four parameters, including purpose and optionality. It clarifies that version_id, alias, and engine are filters, and provides a brief description of each.

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 explicitly states 'List deployments for a workflow', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows and list_workflow_versions.

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 mentions listing across all versions or a specific version, providing context on filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workflow_aliases or list_workflow_versions.

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