watch_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions streaming and error info, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how long it runs, whether it blocks, or what happens when the deployment finishes. This is a significant gap for a streaming tool without annotation support.

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 that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's functionality.

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's complexity (streaming behavior) and lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the structure of the stream, how to terminate it, or what 'detailed status updates' entails. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter purposes, and the description does not enhance or clarify them further.

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's function with a specific verb ('stream') and resource ('deployment progress'), and specifies it includes status updates and error information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_deployment_status, which implies a one-time status check rather than continuous streaming.

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 context of 'real-time streaming' clearly implies when to use it (for continuous monitoring of deployments), but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or a direct comparison to siblings like check_deployment_status or get_deployment_logs.

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