get_deployment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'heck' implies a read-only operation, and 'running or completed' scopes the supported states, but it does not disclose what status values will be returned, whether repeated polling is expected, or how unknown/invalid request IDs are handled.

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 no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse and evaluate quickly.

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?

The description is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, but because there is no output schema, it would benefit from naming the possible status values or return shape. It also does not mention what happens for missing or invalid request IDs.

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 description coverage is 100% and the requestId parameter is described as 'Request ID from a previous deployment'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('deployment'), and the scope ('running or completed'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the deployment-mutation tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'running or completed deployment' implies it should be used after a deployment has been initiated, but the description does not explicitly name any sibling deployment-triggering tool or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than directly explained.

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