get_auto_deploy_settings

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful semantic context about what each flag controls, which is valuable, but it does not disclose additional operational behavior such as error cases or availability. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by compact definitions of the two flags. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read with an output schema, read-only annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It loses one point because the sibling get_auto_deploy_info could be confused with this tool and no disambiguation is provided.

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 only parameter, id, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Get the automatic-update flags for a deployment' and names the two flags. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_auto_deploy_info, so it misses the top bar for sibling differentiation.

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 versus get_auto_deploy_info, or how it relates to update_auto_deploy_settings. The purpose implies a read use case, but there are no explicit when-to-use conditions or exclusions.

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