hosting_listJsDeployments

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 discloses that the tool is paginated and filterable by states, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions or auth requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving efficiency.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage but lacks details on return format, error handling, or domain requirements. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to handle edge cases.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds context by mentioning 'domain' and 'filtering by deployment states', but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., default page size or max items). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists javascript/Node.js application deployments for checking their status. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('deployments'), and distinguishes from siblings like hosting_deployJsApplication and hosting_showJsDeploymentLogs by focusing on status checking.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when customer asks for the status of the deployment', providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the explicit usage instruction is strong and adequate for most cases.

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