list_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: it is a read-style listing, results are paginated by cursor, and the output is stored in the object store with a preview object ID. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate or scope limits, but the operational model is largely covered.

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 purpose and parameters are front-loaded and useful, but the tail repeats itself: 'output is automatically stored and can be referenced in other functions' is restated by 'Use the returned object ID to pass this result to other functions,' so the final block does not fully earn its length.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the return shape (paginated list or error, formatted preview with @obj_123) and how to consume it via object store tools. Minor gaps remain on error cases and scope of the listing, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, yet the description documents all three parameters: after is the next-page cursor, group_label filters by group label, and tags filters with 'any tag present' semantics. That 'any match' clarification is meaning the schema alone could not convey.

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 ('Lists deployments (AI Gateways)') plus the scope ('currently configured deepset workspace'), and adds a definition of what a deployment is. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like get_deployment or list_deployment_revisions, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the filter parameters (group_label, tags) and cursoring suggest browsing/filtering a deployment inventory, but the description never says when to use this instead of get_deployment or create_deployment, nor states any prerequisites.

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