Get deployment process details from Octopus Deploy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds context about project-released process links but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authorization requirements or rate limits.

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 brief and front-loaded with a clear statement of purpose. It contains no extraneous information, making it efficient. However, it could integrate parameter hints without adding length.

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?

For a read-only tool with annotations, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage tips. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could do more to specify return values.

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?

Although schema coverage is high at 80%, the description adds no information about parameters. The required 'spaceName' parameter lacks a schema description and the description does not compensate, leaving a gap in understanding for the agent.

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 retrieves a deployment process by ID and provides context about project vs frozen processes. It distinguishes from other tools implicitly as a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_deployment_from_url'.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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