Get Deployed Artifact Status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns status and error details, but does not specify possible status values, whether the operation is read-only (likely but unconfirmed), or any other behavioral context (e.g., rate limits). Minimal 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, efficiently conveying the core purpose. However, it omits necessary details for parameters and usage, making it somewhat under-specified for the agent's needs.

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 tool has 2 unannotated parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral depth, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention either 'artifactId' or 'includeErrorDetails', nor does it explain their purpose or default values. The phrase 'one runtime artifact' only hints at 'artifactId' but does not clarify the optional 'includeErrorDetails' parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'deployment status of one runtime artifact', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_deployed_artifacts' (which lists multiple) or 'get_build_and_deploy_status' (which may cover broader status).

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 for a single artifact, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_deployed_artifacts' or 'get_build_and_deploy_status'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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