github_get_deployments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value beyond the schema by stating that the tool returns deployment ID, environment, status, ref, and creator, and that the environment filter is optional. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple listing operation this is adequate disclosure.

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 that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides concise supporting details about filtering and return fields. Every word contributes meaning.

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 list operation with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the return fields, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not explain ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic listing tool given the context of sibling tools that handle more specific actions.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (repo, owner, environment), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little extra parameter semantics, only echoing the optional nature of the environment filter. It does not go beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear action verb 'List' and a specific resource 'deployments for a repository', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle workflows or repositories. The optional environment filter adds precision without confusion.

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 when to use this tool (when listing deployments for a repo) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. Since there is a sibling 'rollback_deployment' that also involves deployments, a note about using this to inspect before rolling back would have been helpful, but the core usage is clear enough.

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