List JS Deployments

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists deployments and their status, which is already implied by the name and schema. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether it lists deployments for a specific domain only. This is a minimal disclosure for a read-only operation, so it falls short.

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 two short, focused sentences. The first states the core function, and the second gives a direct use case. There is no unnecessary fluff, and it is concise and front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage. The schema covers parameter details. However, it could have mentioned that this is specific to JavaScript deployments and that the deployment list is per domain/username, but the schema provides these details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (domain, states, username). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of 'states' values. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 application deployments and includes their status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_deploy_js_app (creates a deployment) and hosting_deploy_js_logs (retrieves logs). It uses a specific verb and resource.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use to check if deployment is pending, running, completed, or failed.' It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context with no exclusions, matching a score of 4.

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