sf_get_deploy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as the wait parameter's polling/blocking nature, what 'details' include, or whether any side effects exist. The simple statement 'Get deployment status' gives no operational context.

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, concise sentence with no fluff, making it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified and lacks helpful details, so it earns a slightly lower score than a fully informative concise description.

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 tool with 4 parameters, a wait option, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what status details are returned, how the wait parameter behaves, or the roles of directory and targetOrg, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'deploy job id' (jobId). It does not explain the purpose of wait, directory, or targetOrg, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 deployment status and details using a deploy job ID, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like sf_deploy_metadata or sf_cancel_deploy. The verb 'Get' and resource 'deployment status and details' are explicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as after running a deployment or to poll for completion. The only implied usage is from the phrase 'by deploy job id,' but there is no explicit context or exclusion.

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