List deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by revealing the ordering (newest first), the fields returned (status/commit/timestamps), and the special behavior for the unfiltered case (queued or in-progress). It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loading the key distinction between the two modes. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the behavior immediately understandable.

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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the return fields, ordering, and the difference in scope. It doesn't describe pagination beyond the limit parameter, but the limit is already documented in the schema. No critical information is missing for a listing tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds conditional semantics (the application parameter changes the scope entirely), which goes beyond the schema's standalone definitions. It reinforces the meaning without redundancy.

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 lists deployments, with a specific distinction based on the application parameter. It describes the output content (newest first, status/commit/timestamps) and differentiates between filtered and unfiltered behavior, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_deployment which fetches a single 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool with the application parameter (to get that app's recent deployments) and without it (to see queued or in-progress deployments). However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the two-mode behavior itself serves as clear guidance.

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