Get deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that endpoint status includes both tunnel online state and actual service responsiveness, plus recent jobs and events. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what the call will return.

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 that front-loads the main purpose ('current status of a deployment') and lists the included categories without any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only status tool with one parameter, the description covers the key return categories and endpoint health semantics. There is no output schema, so listing endpoints, jobs, and events is important and mostly sufficient. It could be more explicit about how jobs/events are represented or paginated, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter, deployment_id, and the description does not explain what deployment_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. The parameter is somewhat self-evident from the tool name, but with no schema description and no compensation in the tool description, the agent must infer its meaning.

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 what the tool returns: current status of a single deployment, including endpoint health (tunnel online and service responsiveness), recent jobs, and recent events. This is specific about resource and scope, and distinguishes it from broader listing tools like list_deployments and from get_deployment_events, which covers only events.

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 implies this tool is for checking the current status of one deployment, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like get_deployment_events, wait_for_deployment, or list_deployments. There are no alternative names or exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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