List Railway Deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a CLI version requirement, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description lacks details on output format or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential prerequisite information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for a listing tool with multiple parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List deployments') and the resource ('for a Railway service'), specifying what information is returned ('IDs, statuses and other metadata'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'deploy' or 'get-logs' by focusing on listing rather than creating or retrieving logs.

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 specifying a prerequisite ('Requires Railway CLI v4.10.0+'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-services' or 'list-projects'. No exclusions or specific contexts for usage are provided beyond the CLI version requirement.

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