deploy.status

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, and `destructiveHint: false`. The description adds valuable behavioral context about polling behavior and the structure of results (endpoints, verificationResults), without contradicting 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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second provides actionable details. Every sentence 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?

With only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description fully covers when to use the tool (polling after deploy.run) and what to expect in the response (endpoints and verificationResults). No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds 'Deployment id returned by deploy.run' which provides source context but does not fundamentally add beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Check deployment progress and retrieve verification evidence when complete', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `deploy.run` and `deploy.destroy` by focusing on status checking.

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 provides clear context: 'Poll after deploy.run until status is verified/failed/destroyed' and explains what information is available on success. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the polling guidance is sufficient.

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