Retrieve resource criteria for a deployment limit policy to define or validate policy constraints before deployment.
Returns resource criteria for deployment limit policy. GET /deploymentlimit/api/policy/resourceCriteria/schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /approval/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the payload relates to deployment limit policy criteria and appends the raw endpoint path, which duplicates the annotation title; it does not explain what the returned criteria/schema contains or whether it is static metadata.
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 first sentence is a tight purpose statement, but the second sentence is the raw HTTP path already present in the annotations title, so it earns less than its space. Still short and front-loaded overall.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should convey what 'resource criteria' actually returns — a schema document versus a list of criteria are very different payloads and the description leaves that ambiguous. For a read-only metadata fetch this is adequate but not sufficient to predict the response shape.
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 single optional apiVersion parameter has full schema description coverage including its yyyy-MM-dd format, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no versioning or defaulting guidance beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Returns resource criteria') and scopes it to the deployment limit policy, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the metrics_usage siblings. The 'schema' suffix in the path hints it returns a criteria schema rather than live metric values, though the description never says that plainly and the 'metrics_' name prefix is misleading given the deployment-limit domain.
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?
No indication of when an agent should call this versus metrics_get_resource_usage_metrics, metrics_get_qp_resource_details, or any deployment-limit alternative. There are no prerequisites or sequencing hints either, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.