marketplace_get_deployment_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden on its own. It only states the return type; it does not explicitly confirm that the call is read-only, side-effect free, or free of special authentication requirements. The 'Returns' line is useful but minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose, followed by a short return-value line. There is no filler or redundant background, and the length is appropriate for such a simple no-argument tool.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description is mostly sufficient, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value details. The main gap is contextual positioning: the description does not clarify how deployment examples differ from the application deployment guide or popular-app list, which could lead an agent to select the wrong marketplace tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The input schema already conveys the absence of arguments, and the description's mention of 'popular marketplace applications' implies an unfiltered, all-in-one response. This aligns with the 0-params baseline of 4.

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 identifies the action ('Get examples') and the resource ('how to deploy popular marketplace applications'), and it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like marketplace_get_application_deployment_guide or marketplace_get_popular_marketplace_apps, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 the many marketplace-related siblings. The description does not explain whether this returns static examples, complements the deployment guide, or is scoped to popular applications only, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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