deploy.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it is 'read-only' and does not create, modify, or destroy resources, reinforcing annotations. It also discloses return field structure, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: return fields, use cases, exclusions. No filler.

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 zero parameters and existence of output schema, description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and limitations. Slight gap: no mention of possible empty results or pagination, but not critical for a list-all tool with no params.

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?

No parameters (0), schema coverage 100%. Baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info; it correctly omits any. No gaps.

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 clearly states it returns tracked deployments with specific fields (deploymentId, status, category, createdAt), using a specific verb ('Return'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy.destroy, deploy.teardown_latest, and deploy.status by indicating when to use each, avoiding ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a deploymentId is needed or to inventory active work before teardown. Also states when not to use: for monitoring a known deployment, recommending deploy.status instead. This provides clear guidance for agent decision-making.

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