List JavaScript deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the result is paginated and that filtering by deployment states is possible, but it does not reveal details about ordering, default page size, or response contents. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage trigger, and capability. There is slight redundancy between the first and third sentences ('List javascript application deployments' vs 'retrieves a paginated list of Node.js application deployments'), but the description is short, front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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 read-only list tool with complete schema documentation and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description covers the core need: what it lists, when to use it, and its filtering/pagination behavior. No output schema exists, so the description could be more explicit about return shape, but this is not a serious gap for a status-listing tool.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the role of domain and states filtering and mentions pagination, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific action (list/retrieve deployments), a concrete resource (Node.js/JavaScript application deployments), and an explicit purpose ('for checking their status'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like hosting_showJsDeploymentLogs by focusing on status rather than logs, and from hosting_deployJsApplication by being a read/list operation.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when customer asks for the status of the deployment.' This is clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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