get_deployed_prompt_versions

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only and indicates what it returns (versions deployed to environments like dev, staging, production, custom). However, it does not address behavior for invalid inputs, error cases, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it provides basic safety information.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first paragraph introduces the purpose, and the second provides a parameter list. No redundant information is present. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only two required parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: purpose, read-only nature, and environments. It does not explain edge cases or output structure, but the output schema compensates for the latter. For a simple tool, the description is adequately complete.

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?

The parameter schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters in an Args section and notes they are required, adding meaning beyond the schema's required specification. However, it does not provide details on valid formats, examples, or additional semantics, so compensation is partial.

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 that the tool retrieves deployment status for a prompt template, indicating which versions are deployed to each environment. It uses specific verbs ('Get') and identifies the resource ('deployed prompt versions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_prompt_version' (which likely gets a specific version details) by focusing on deployment across environments.

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 implies usage for checking deployment status but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions the tool is read-only, which gives some context, but lacks alternative tool references or exclusions.

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