Get deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds the permission requirement for log output (read:sensitive) and the line-limit behavior (default 100). This goes beyond the annotation by specifying a practical constraint, though it doesn't describe the response structure.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary purpose (status + log lines) and immediately follow with the permission note. No filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with fully described parameters, this covers the essential context: what it returns and a critical permission caveat. The lack of return-format details is acceptable since no output schema is expected, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100% so both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds only the nuance that lines come from the build/deploy log, which is a minor clarification that doesn't materially exceed what the schema already conveys.

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 it retrieves the status of a single deployment plus log lines, which distinguishes it from list_deployments (listing multiple) and get_application_logs (application logs). The verb 'get' plus resource 'deployment' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for a specific deployment via its UUID but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_deployments or get_application_logs. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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