list_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, permissions, return format, or cluster selection semantics. For a list operation, it doesn't state whether it returns all fields or just names, or if cluster_alias overrides the default.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loads the action verb immediately.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, the description does not clarify the role of cluster_alias or the behavior when multiple clusters are available, nor does it mention any filtering or pagination. Given the availability of an output schema, the description is close to sufficient for a basic list operation, but the cluster_alias parameter introduces ambiguity.

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 description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of namespace (which has a default) and cluster_alias (which is nullable). No parameter meanings are added beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'List' and resource 'Deployments' with a namespace scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_deployment or scale_deployment. It directly states the action and target.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description is purely declarative with no contextual usage information.

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