rollout_status_deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the `oc rollout status` equivalence hints at CLI behavior, but it does not disclose whether the call blocks until rollout completion, how in-progress or failed rollouts are signaled, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a command that may be long-running.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter documentation is a compact labeled list with no filler. Every sentence adds meaning or a default that is not otherwise obvious from schema titles.

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 status tool with an output schema and only three flat parameters, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the wait/blocking behavior or the relationship to rollout-control siblings, but the low complexity and output schema reduce the need for deeper context.

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 0%, so the Arg list must carry the semantics, and it does: each parameter receives a concise explanation, including Deployment name, namespace default, and cluster target with empty-equals-default behavior. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Show the rollout status of a Deployment,' and reinforces it with the `oc rollout status` equivalent. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like rollout_restart_deployment, rollout_undo_deployment, and scale_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 intended use is implied by the status verb and resource: use it to inspect rollout progress for a Deployment. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over related rollout tools or how it relates to rollout_restart_deployment and rollout_undo_deployment, so the agent must infer the usage context.

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