deployment_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it clarifies that the 'status' field refers to the upstream HTTP status at the deployment's service URL, not the tool call's status, and that the owner defaults to the account owner. This prevents a critical misunderstanding.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose stated first and the critical caveat about 'status' placed second. Every phrase earns its place, 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?

No output schema is present, so the description must convey the response shape. It explains the 'status' field but does not mention any other possible fields (e.g., timestamp, latency, error info) or behavior on missing deployments. For a simple health probe this is acceptable, but a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 provides a 100%-covered description of the single 'deployment' parameter. The tool description goes further by explaining the default behavior when a bare slug is used (owner defaults to the account owner), which is not stated in the schema and helps the agent construct correct invocations.

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 ('Probe') and a clear resource ('one deployment's health'), with the scope defined by owner/deployment or bare slug. It distinguishes itself from sibling deployment tools by focusing on health probing, which is semantically distinct from deployment_get, deployment_logs, or deployment_metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deployment_get or deployment_metrics. The description provides a behavioral detail about the owner default but does not mention when a health probe is appropriate or when another sibling would be better, leaving the agent to infer.

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