describe_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "Describe" implies a read-only inspection and the phrase "full container specs and rollout conditions" usefully previews the payload, but nothing is said about permissions, error behavior for missing deployments, or how much detail is truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the return scope follows immediately after the verb and resource.

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 two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and it gestures at the return content. With no output schema and no annotations, however, the agent still lacks any statement of the response shape or failure modes.

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% and both parameters (name, namespace with default) are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Describe a deployment") and adds the scope of what is returned (container specs, rollout conditions). It is readable against the sibling list_deployments without consulting either schema, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives such as list_deployments or describe_pod. The only signal is the implicit describe-vs-list contrast carried by the names.

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