get_deployment_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status counts and that ID is optional, which is useful. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or reversibility, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the optional ID behavior, followed by a parenthetical business requirement. There is no fluff or 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return categories (completed/failed/pending/downloading) and the condition for full vs. specific queries. It misses details like response structure or error cases, but for a simple read tool it is largely adequate.

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 100%, with the id parameter described as '조회할 배포 ID (미지정 시 전체 조회)'. The tool description repeats this behavior without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb '조회' (query) and the resource 'deployment status', and specifies that it returns counts of completion/failure/pending/downloading. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_patch_deployment by focusing on deployment status rather than patch-specific operations, though it does not explicitly contrast itself.

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 mentions that omitting ID returns overall status, which is a usage condition. It also includes a business requirement note about patch deployment success rate, implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions.

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