get_deployment_image_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation, but does not disclose behaviors like what happens if the deployment is not found, whether authentication is required, or how cluster_alias affects the query. The output schema helps, but the description alone is somewhat minimal.

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, dense sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes meaningful information.

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 existence of an output schema and only three parameters, the tool is not complex, but the description still lacks key contextual information. It does not explain cluster_alias semantics, doesn't mention the sibling list_deployments_image_info for scenarios needing all deployments, and provides no fallback or error context. The output schema covers return values, but the tool is not contextually complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, namespace, cluster_alias). Names like namespace are self-explanatory, but cluster_alias is ambiguous and could be critical for multi-cluster setups. The description provides zero guidance beyond the schema, so it adds no value here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific Deployment') and the data returned (image repository, tag, and version label). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments_image_info, which operates across deployments.

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?

'For a specific Deployment' implies a single-deployment use case, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives such as list_deployments_image_info or get_deployment. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving clear context but no exclusions or alternative references.

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