get_deployment_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 of disclosing behavior. It implies a non-destructive check but never explicitly states that it does not modify anything or what exactly 'deployment details' includes. This lack of explicit safety and output context is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with the main verb first and no filler. It earns its place by conveying both purpose and scope in minimal words.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what 'deployment details' returns and whether there are any side effects. It does neither, leaving the agent without adequate context for a correct invocation or result interpretation.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters (e.g., network default or accepted formats), relying entirely on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check if') and identifies the resource (NEAR account), making the action and scope immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling deployment tools by focusing on querying status rather than modifying, which is a distinct purpose.

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 clearly implies a read-only status query, which contrasts with the mutation-focused sibling tools like deploy_contract and upgrade_contract. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls 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.