get_promote_aliases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Check the status') with no side effects, but lacks details about error conditions (e.g., no recent promote/rollback), authentication requirements, or response format. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 is direct and informative, containing no unnecessary words or fluff. It earns its place by clearly stating purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the general purpose but does not detail the output format or what 'status' includes (e.g., success/failure, alias names). It could be more complete by hinting at the response structure, but it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the overall purpose rather than explaining how parameters relate to the operation. Baseline 3.

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 checks the status of the most recent promote/rollback for a project, specifically which aliases were assigned. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of promote/rollback'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'promote_deployment' (which performs the action) and 'list_aliases' (which lists all aliases).

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 the tool is for checking the result after a promote or rollback, but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't guide the agent to use this tool after 'promote_deployment' or 'rollback_deployment' rather than other status check tools like 'get_deployment'.

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