list_worker_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' conveys a non-mutating read operation and the rollback context adds practical meaning, but the description doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or what identifiers/fields the returned deployments contain.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with 'useful for rollback decisions' as a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only list with fully documented parameters, the description is complete enough to select and invoke the tool. The lack of an output schema means return-field details are absent, but the resource and purpose are sufficiently clear.

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%: both account_id and script_name are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('deployments'), and scopes it to 'a Worker script', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_worker_builds or get_worker_script. The rollback note adds purpose without confusing the operation.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('useful for rollback decisions'), which tells the agent when this list will be valuable. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses only the explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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