List deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mild behavioral context (newest-first ordering and included fields) but does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or filtering defaults beyond the schema.

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 the most important information (what is listed, ordering, included fields) front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 list operation with strong annotations and a schema that documents filters, the description is largely complete. It could mention pagination or explicitly say it returns a list of deployment summaries, but the ordering and fields plus schema cover most agent needs.

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 moderate (two of three parameters documented) and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. limit is only described by its default/min/max, and the description does not clarify how search or status filters interact.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource ('Deployments on this account'), specifies newest-first ordering and visible fields (status, strategy, active jobs, timeout), so an agent can tell it lists deployments. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_deployment or list_templates, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives; there are no exclusions or mentions of get_deployment for single-deployment detail, create_deployment, or estimate_deployment. The one-sentence description only states what it returns, leaving selection context entirely to inference.

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