get_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an important non-obvious behavior: the result is stored in an object store and returned as a formatted preview with an object ID. However, it says nothing about permissions, error conditions beyond 'error message', or whether the read is side-effect free.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the docstring-style block is padded: ':returns: Deployment details or error message' is followed by three sentences that all circle the same object-store/object-ID idea, with the last two largely redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is right to describe the return mechanism (object ID, preview, chaining into object-store tools). It stops short on other essentials such as error handling and where the deployment_id comes from, leaving gaps for a tool embedded among ~60 siblings.

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 0% and the single param has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It offers only 'ID of the deployment to fetch', which restates the parameter name rather than clarifying format, source, or where to obtain it.

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 verb and resource ('Fetches details for a specific deployment') and adds the scope of what is returned (active revision, runtime status). This distinguishes it from list_deployments and get_deployment_revision without naming them, but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 never says when to use this tool versus the many siblings (get_deployment_revision, get_deployment_stats, get_deployment_metrics, list_deployment_revisions). Usage is only inferable from 'specific deployment', so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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