List Deployments

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 only the scope ('all deployments for a script project') and does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. This adds some value but is minimal 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 listing tool, the description combined with the rich annotations and output schema provides sufficient context. The two required parameters are covered by the schema, and the annotations handle safety expectations. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so both required parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('deployments'), and a clear scope ('for a script project'). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like manage_deployment and list_versions without 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?

The description makes it clear this is a listing operation, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as manage_deployment. There is no exclusion or routing guidance beyond the verb 'Lists'.

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