Get deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it returns 'status and logs,' which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or potential pagination. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information: action, resource, and identifier. No wasted words 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose and key return content ('status and logs'). It lacks details on error cases or log pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema only defines uuid as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining that uuid is the deployment identifier, making the parameter's purpose clear. This adds meaning beyond the schema despite the 0% schema description 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('deployment'), and scope ('status and logs') with an identifier ('by UUID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like listDeployments and getLogs by specifying a unique deployment lookup.

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: call with a deployment UUID to retrieve status and logs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like getLogs or listDeployments, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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