List running deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: it lists only 'active' deployments (not stopped ones) and supports optional filtering. The cost warning adds context about why listing is useful. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The core action ('List active deployments') is front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and a practical usage rationale. Every word earns its place; it's both concise and informative.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and high parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and the active-deployment scope. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but those are typically inferred for list operations and the annotations already signal safety. Overall, 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 100% – both limit and filter have descriptions in the schema. The description's 'optionally filtered' mirrors the filter param but adds no new syntax or details. Since the schema already documents both parameters fully, the description provides no extra parameter-level value, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('active deployments') with an explicit filter option. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like edgegap_get_deployment (single) and edgegap_stop_deployment (mutation), and even gives a concrete use case that sets it apart. An agent can immediately grasp what this tool does and how it relates to others.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use context: 'find deployments left running from earlier sessions before starting new ones' with the cost warning. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state exclusions, the guidance is actionable and context-rich, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool. Slight gap: no mention of alternatives for single-deployment lookup.

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