appwrite_get_deployment

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds valuable context by specifying the tool returns 'build status and logs' (behavioral detail beyond just 'details'), but lacks information on data freshness, pagination of logs, or error states.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value. The extreme breveness becomes a liability given the complete lack of parameter documentation elsewhere.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter explanations, return structure, and doesn't clarify the Appwrite-specific resource hierarchy (site/function/deployment).

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 has 0% description coverage for all 3 required parameters (site, function_id, deployment_id), and the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter semantics or relationships (e.g., that deployment_id belongs to the specified function_id).

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?

Clearly states the action (Get) and resource (deployment details) with specific data fields retrieved (build status and logs). Loses one point for failing to distinguish from sibling tool appwrite_get_active_deployment.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this specific tool versus appwrite_get_active_deployment or appwrite_list_deployments. Does not mention prerequisites like needing a valid deployment_id.

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