clasp_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description must cover safety/auth/return behavior, but it simply restates the function. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is not wasteful, but the brevity comes at the expense of useful context.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves the agent without important details like what a deployment is, how results are structured, and how this differs from listing versions. The tool's interaction with the local project (rootDir) is also unexplained.

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?

The input schema covers the single rootDir parameter with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('deployments'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from similar sibling tools like clasp_versions, so it's clear but not distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clasp_versions or clasp_deploy. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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