deploy_status

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 does disclose the authorization requirement (owner-admin or super_admin), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior when unauthorized, or what a missing deployment returns.

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?

Two short fragments with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style leaves the permission clause slightly ambiguous in phrasing.

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 two-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and access control adequately. It is missing guidance on alternatives and any note on what status information is returned, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior for an omitted deploymentId. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consultar status do deployment'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read of deployment state. It does not need to distinguish itself from the listed siblings, none of which overlap with deployment status, but it also offers no explicit differentiation.

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 names a precondition — the caller must be the owning admin or a super_admin — which is useful gating information. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over another, nor any exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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