get_patch_deployment

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 correctly implies a read-only operation ('조회'), but gives no details about authentication, rate limits, or response characteristics. It says what info is returned but not the format or edge cases. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 with the main purpose stated first. The parenthetical is minor but not distracting. Every element is relevant to the tool's core function, with no waste.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description names the key detail categories (타겟 그룹, 일정, 상태, 재시작 여부), which helps the agent anticipate the response. However, it fails to note the overlap with get_deployment_status or when to prefer this tool, leaving some ambiguity in a suite with similar tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'id' has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the ID format, usage, or behavior beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb (조회) and resource (Patch 배포 상세 정보), and lists the kind of details returned (대상 그룹, 일정, 상태, 재시작 여부). It distinguishes from the general get_deployment_status by focusing on patch deployment specifics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deployment_status. The parenthetical '(업무요건: 패치 배포 현황)' appears to be a business requirement note, not usage context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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