Get Deployed Artifact Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds that error details are returned if failed, which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or failure modes for non-existent artifacts, though the 'Get' verb implies safety.

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 with no filler. It conveys the verb, resource, and an additional detail concisely. Every word is functional.

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 2-parameter read tool, the description gives the core purpose and an extra behavior, but with no output schema it doesn't describe the response structure or possible status values. It is sufficient for a minimal understanding but lacks return details.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'error details if failed' but doesn't map to includeErrorDetails. artifactId is completely unexplained beyond its name, so the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment status of one runtime artifact'), and adds scope ('one') and an additional detail ('plus error details if failed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployed_artifacts (list all) and get_build_and_deploy_status (process 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's deployment status, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. The singular 'one runtime artifact' provides context, but no sibling differentiation or exclusion is stated.

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