get_auto_deploy_info

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe to call without side effects. The description adds context about the preview stack limitation and the specific fields returned, but does not go into detail about permissions or rate limits. Since annotations cover the core behavioral traits, this is strong.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It lists key return fields and ends with a relevant exclusion. No superfluous sentences; every word adds value.

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 has a single parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema (as indicated by the context signal), so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential scenario and the preview stack limitation, making it complete for a read-only informational tool. Minor gap: no mention of when the webhook might not be configured or error cases, but that is acceptable.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter stating 'Deployment ID'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. No extra domain context is provided for the parameter.

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 primary purpose: checking whether automatic updates are available and inspecting GitHub webhook state. It explicitly lists the returned fields, which helps distinguish it from related tools like get_auto_deploy_settings and update_auto_deploy_settings. The scope (deployment, not settings) is 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 clear context for when to use this tool (to check availability and webhook state) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion conditions. It notes that automatic updates do not apply to preview stacks, which is a usage boundary. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this versus get_auto_deploy_settings, but the sibling names and field list provide reasonable differentiation.

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