get_migration_deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that this is scoped to AWS deployments for migration infrastructure, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or what happens if the migration has no AWS deployments. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides context about when such deployments exist. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple schema (one required id), an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description explains the AWS self-hosted Supabase context, which is the main contextual nuance. It doesn't describe the output structure, but the output schema exists so that's not required. Minor gap: no mention of what happens when no deployments exist, but that's not critical for a list operation.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is described as 'Migration ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is correct. The description does clarify the relationship between migration and deployments, which helps understand the id parameter's role.

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 tool lists all AWS deployments associated with a migration's infrastructure stack, and explains the context (migrations that deploy to AWS self-hosted Supabase create deployments for infrastructure provisioning). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deployment or list_deployments by scoping to migration infrastructure 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need deployments for a migration's infrastructure stack, specifically for AWS self-hosted Supabase migrations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context about AWS self-hosted Supabase provides clear usage context. Sibling tools like get_deployment are for individual deployments, so the distinction is inferable.

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