deployment_get_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is fully covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path and says nothing about error behavior (e.g. what an unknown requestId returns) or the shape of the returned request object.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but all three lines say the same thing (name, then single-ID fetch, then the path). The endpoint line is the only one carrying distinct information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It is not sufficient to disambiguate the heavily overlapping "request" siblings or to tell the agent what the returned request contains.

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 a single required requestId documented as "Request ID (path)". The description's "with the given ID" adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

"Get the Request" restates the tool name, and "Returns the request with the given ID" restates the parameter. Nothing explains what a "request" is in this domain, which matters because siblings cover blueprint requests, approval requests, and resource requests. The only added signal is the REST path, which is a restatement rather than a clarification.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus deployment_get_deployment_requests (the list form), deployment_get_request_events, or approvals_get_work_item_by_deployment_request. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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