Get Deployment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by noting that the deployment output log requires a broader scope (site:manage-deploys) and that read-only tokens will get a 403 for the log while the summary works. This behavioral insight goes beyond the annotations.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds critical scope information. Every sentence is valuable and there is no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description lists the key fields returned (commit, author, status, etc.) and includes a scope-related caveat. It is fairly complete for a single-item retrieval tool, though it could mention error handling or not found scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation. No extra parameter guidance is provided.

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 it returns detailed information about a single deployment, listing fields like commit, author, status, timings, and failure info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments (list) and get_deployment_script (script).

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 usage when needing detailed deployment information but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does mention a scope requirement for the log, providing some usage context, but lacks direct guidance on when to use this versus other tools.

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