List Active Deployments

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. Description adds that it returns deployment names, versions, etc., but doesn't disclose additional traits like pagination behavior or potential for empty results. No contradictions.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and output summary.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the output fields. However, it could mention that limit/offset control pagination or that results are from all production environments.

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 low (33% - only response_format described), and the description does not explain the meaning of limit or offset parameters. Common pagination understanding partially compensates, but the description should have clarified these for an agent.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all active deployments across production environments and returns specific fields like names, repositories, versions, and status. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like openl_list_deploy_repositories.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., openl_list_deploy_repositories or openl_deploy_project). The context implies it's for listing active deployments, but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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