deployment_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'List' and 'Returns' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description never explicitly confirms safety, idempotency, or side effects. It provides no information on pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with logical flow: action statement, filter capabilities, and return value specification. Each sentence earns its place by conveying distinct information, though the second sentence describes non-existent parameters which reduces its value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description usefully specifies return fields (ID, name, time). However, it omits safety confirmations (destructive vs read-only) and, most critically, references filter parameters absent from the schema, leaving the actual interface ambiguous. For a listing tool with no annotations or output schema, more comprehensive behavioral context was needed.

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 defines zero parameters (empty properties object), yet the description explicitly references filter parameters: 'name, source, deployment time range, or tenant.' This creates a critical mismatch where the description claims functionality (filtering) that the schema does not support, likely confusing the agent about what inputs are actually accepted.

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 the specific action (List) and resource (deployments in the engine). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'deployment_count' (aggregation) and 'deployment_listResources' (sub-resources) through the resource naming, though it could explicitly clarify when to prefer this over 'deployment_getById' for specific lookups.

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 usage by listing available filter criteria (name, source, time range, tenant), suggesting when the tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or alternatives for cases requiring specific ID lookups (use deployment_getById) or simple counts (use deployment_count).

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