get_deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds that it returns details from 'when that version shipped' and includes specific data types (paths, hashes, sizes), but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or permissions beyond what annotations imply.

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, each essential: first explains purpose and return value, second gives usage guidance. No fluff.

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 the tool has only 2 simple parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations providing safety hints, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only an explicit mention of auth requirements or error scenarios, but those are implied by the readOnlyHint.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id and version). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a 'detail view of one deployment by version number' and specifies it returns 'the full file manifest (paths, hashes, sizes) and function list'. This clearly distinguishes it from list_deployments, a sibling tool for listing all deployments.

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 explicitly advises to 'use it with list_deployments to audit or compare what changed between versions', providing a clear usage pattern and when-not-to-use (i.e., for listing, use list_deployments).

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