Get deployment status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, but the description adds substantial behavior: per-section independence, partial failure via `error` plus `warnings`, caveats to read, plan-gating on drift, and what each source captures. It also notes the GitHub mirror lag and manual deletion detection, which go well beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and then organized by section, with the alternative sibling named last. It is dense but nearly every clause carries useful information, though the long compound sentences slightly reduce readability.

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?

Given the output schema, the description does not need to restate return values, and it covers everything else an agent needs: section semantics, partial-failure behavior, caveats, plan-gating, and the correct alternative for raw logs.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning to the `include` enum by explaining what stats, health, and drift each measure. It does not add details about the `since` parameter beyond what the schema says.

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?

Frames the tool around two explicit questions ('is this deployed workflow healthy' and 'is it still what we deployed') and names the resource. It distinguishes each section (stats, health, drift) and explicitly separates itself from get_deployment_logs for raw logs.

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?

States when to use it (health and drift assessment in one call) and names the alternative sibling for raw log lines with the condition that selects it. It also explains that sections can be omitted for speed, giving the agent a clear usage decision.

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