deployado_get_deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing that the payload includes deployment phases and error details, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., behavior for an unknown deployment_id) or response size.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope plus return contents come first. It is efficient, though slightly more could have been said to route between sibling tools without hurting brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only hint at return shape, and it gives just a brief sketch (phases, error details). For a simple two-UUID read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about what fields to expect and how to obtain the deployment_id in the first place.

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%, and both parameters (app_id, deployment_id) are documented as UUIDs in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format or relationship detail beyond what is already structured — baseline 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?

Clear specific verb (get) and resource (a specific deployment), and it names the returned contents ('phases and error details'), which separates it from list_deployments or get_logs. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings like deployado_current_deployment or deployado_get_release.

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 word 'specific' implies a known deployment_id is required rather than fetching the latest, which is the main usage distinction. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit guidance such as 'use current_deployment for the active one' or 'use list_deployments to find an ID', so the agent must infer the routing.

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