deploy_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, progress notifications, return content (per-resource statuses and logs tail on failure), and the FENCED requirement for --allow-destructive and confirm:true. This is substantial useful context, though it doesn't mention timeout behavior explicitly or what happens on internal errors.

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 compact: three sentences, each providing valuable information. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds behavioral details and safety constraints without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good deal of context: blocking behavior, terminal states, progress notifications, return values, failure logs, and destructive-confirmation requirements. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly addressed timeout return behavior, but the schema covers that, and the overall picture is well-rounded.

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 input schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., confirm being mandatory and dry_run behavior are already in the schema). Thus, the description adds no significant extra parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Trigger a deployment and block until it reaches a terminal state'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing blocking behavior and terminal-state outcomes, and it enumerates the terminal states (finished/failed/cancelled/skipped), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the use case: when you need to trigger a deployment and wait for its final outcome, with progress notifications and status/logs. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'deploy' or state when NOT to use this tool, and it lacks concrete alternative guidance.

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