Get Deploy Outputs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe) and openWorldHint=true (outputs vary). The description adds value by explaining sensitive outputs are redacted, and clarifies default versus specific job_id retrieval, and lifecycle filtering.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by important details on output content, default behavior, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content (structured values, sensitive redaction), default and optional behaviors, and required session_id format. It could mention error cases (e.g., if no outputs exist) but is mostly complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default when job_id is omitted, the exact format of session_id including the token suffix, and common lifecycle values. This helps correct usage.

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 retrieves Terraform outputs from a completed deployment, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tfstatus or tfplan, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 context on when to use the tool (after a deploy), default behavior (latest successful deploy), optional filters (job_id, lifecycle), and a prerequisite (session_id from convoopen). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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