deployment_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is known. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that serviceUrl and deployedAt are null until the deployment reaches 'ready' status, which is not inferable from annotations or schema. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a crucial behavioral note about null fields. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers the reference format, the default owner, and the null-field behavior. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to detail return values for this straightforward operation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema describes the parameter as 'Deployment ref by owner/deployment or a bare slug,' but the description adds the critical default behavior ('owner defaults to the account owner'), which is not in the schema. This provides additional meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('one deployment'), and specifies how to reference it (owner/deployment or bare slug with default owner). This distinguishes it from deployments_list, which lists multiple deployments, and from deployment_health/logs/metrics, which target specific aspects.

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 provides clear context for how to specify the deployment, including the default owner behavior. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like deployments_list or deployment_health, the singular focus on 'one deployment' implies its use for single-deployment detail retrieval. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap but the intent is inferable.

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