list_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 only restates that this lists deployments; it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, required access, or what the response contains. For a read-only listing tool this is less risky than a mutation, but behavioral detail is still minimal.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the mention of filtering options is concise.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is too thin. It does not indicate that project_id is likely needed even though it is not marked required, does not explain how filters combine, and does not describe the response format. An agent would have to infer too much.

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 parameter schema already documents each argument and its meaning. The description's 'filtering options' phrase adds no meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a clear verb (List), a specific resource (deployments), and the scope (a GitLab project). It is distinguishable from the sibling get_deployment because 'list' implies a collection operation, though it does not explicitly call out that differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_deployment or other list-oriented tools. It implies usage by naming the resource but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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