list_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight; 'List' reasonably conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation and the optional filter describes scoping behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, result ordering, default project scope, or any permissions/rate-limit requirements, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 extremely compact: one sentence states purpose and the optional-filter behavior, and the Args line briefly clarifies the single parameter. No redundant text or filler is present, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. It would be more complete with a note on when to use it instead of get_deployment, but that gap is partly covered by the clear purpose statement.

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 provides only a title and type for project_id, so the description's 'Optional project ID to filter deployments' adds the crucial semantic that the parameter is a filter. With 0% schema description coverage, this meaningfully compensates, though it does not specify ID format or validation behavior.

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') and specifies the domain ('EasyPanel'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools such as get_deployment or create_deployment, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_deployment or create_deployment, and no exclusions are stated. The only usage hint is the optional project filter, which constrains the parameter but not tool selection.

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