get_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions read behavior (get) but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), or whether it is idempotent/read-only. The description is too brief to meet transparency needs.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output details. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning maximum conciseness.

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 retrieval tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists key returned fields, though it could mention that additional fields are not shown or that the response structure is consistent with other endpoints. Minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already covers all parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., idOrUrl format, teamId fallback). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value, meeting baseline expectations.

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 action (Get), resource (deployment), and scope (full details, one deployment). It specifies the input by id or URL and lists included fields (state, build, meta, aliases), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_deployments or get_deployment_events.

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 indicates usage for retrieving a single deployment via id or URL. It implicitly distinguishes from list (multiple) and events, but lacks explicit when-not to use or alternatives. The context of teamId and slug is clear from schema but not reinforced in description.

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