get_deployment_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose real behavior: the result is auto-stored, returned as a formatted preview with an object ID, and nested properties are reached via object-store tools. It omits permission/auth requirements and only vaguely gestures at errors ('or error message').

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the trailing block repeats the object-store idea across four sentences ('automatically stored', 'referenced in other functions', 'use the object store tools', 'pass this result to other functions') without adding new information.

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 two-param fetch with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (revision + config YAML) at a high level and explains the object-store handoff. It is missing selection guidance and the meaning of the two IDs, which are the main gaps an agent would hit.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet the :param lines merely restate the names ('ID of the deployment', 'ID of the revision to fetch') without format, source, or how to obtain them. It adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 a single deployment revision') and adds scope detail ('including the pipeline configuration YAML it serves'), which clearly separates it from the sibling list_deployment_revisions. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 statement of when to choose this over siblings like get_deployment, list_deployment_revisions, or activate_deployment_revision, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The object-store notes describe what to do with the result, not when to call this tool.

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