sc_deploy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Show' implies read-only, but there is no mention of auth requirements, whether the profile filter is required or optional, what happens when no profile is given, or how the limit interacts with history versus profiles.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity ('alpha deployment-history status'), but it does not pad or bury the key 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 low-complexity read tool with two optional, fully documented params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the meaning of the returned deployment status and the 'alpha' qualifier unexplained, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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%, so both parameters (limit, profile) are already documented. The description hints at their roles ('configured deployment profiles', 'deployment-history') but adds no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema states, 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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and two concrete resources (configured deployment profiles, deployment-history status), so an agent understands it is a read/status query. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling sc_deploy, and the qualifier 'alpha' is unexplained jargon that muddies what is actually being reported.

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 call this versus sc_deploy or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it is a status-style read, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among eight tools.

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