Getting the deployment statuses of a automation

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

The description adds the permission requirement 'view_automations' beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns all statuses at once. Given that annotations already cover the core behavioral profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 only two sentences with minimal redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and permission. However, it could be condensed into one sentence to eliminate repetition without losing clarity.

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 simple read-only tool with 4 parameters, a clear purpose, and annotations covering behavior, the description provides sufficient context. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. It could mention that results are filtered by permissions, but this is implied by the permission requirement.

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 all parameters described. The description only reiterates that automation_id identifies the automation, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain org_id, verbose, or response_format, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action: getting deployment statuses of a specific automation by ID, and mentions the required permission. It is somewhat redundant (two sentences saying the same thing), but the purpose is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like action1_get_automation_status by specifying 'deployment statuses', though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other automation-related tools (e.g., action1_get_automation_status, action1_list_automation_instances). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and description.

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