get_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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying a read-only action, but does not disclose aspects such as required permissions, error behavior (e.g., deployment not found), or the structure of the returned 'detailed information'. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, which prevents a perfect score since conciseness here borders on insufficiency.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'detailed information' means, such as whether it returns the full deployment spec and status, and how cluster_alias is used. The current description is too vague for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and dependencies.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate. While the description implies the 'name' parameter identifies the deployment, it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of 'namespace' or 'cluster_alias', nor their optionality. With three parameters and no supplemental explanation, the agent gets little semantic help.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving detailed information about a specific Deployment, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Deployment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments (which lists) and get_deployment_rollout_status (which specifically targets rollout status), making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_deployment_rollout_status, get_deployment_revision_history, or rollback_deployment. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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