get_deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about include_payload, including what will be returned (workflow_api_json and default overrides) and how those outputs are meant to be used. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all of which earn their place: the core purpose, the API endpoint, and a concrete usage note. No filler or repetition of schema fields. The purpose is front-loaded, and the downstream submit_request hint is dense but valuable.

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 simple, read-only, three-parameter GET tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the key flag, and the downstream use case. It does not cover include_readme behavior or the response shape, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the remaining ambiguity is minor given the annotations and low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains deployment_id implicitly ('by ID') and describes include_payload's effect in detail, but include_readme is not mentioned at all. The schema provides only types and defaults, leaving one parameter without meaningful semantic guidance.

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 opens with 'Get one deployment by ID', which specifies a concrete verb, resource, and selection criterion. This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_deployments (list all) and create/update/delete deployment (mutations). The explicit endpoint mapping reinforces the purpose.

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 provides actionable usage context: set include_payload=true when you need the workflow graph and overrides for submit_request. It does not explicitly contrast with list_deployments or state when to use other deployment tools, which keeps this at a 4 rather than a 5.

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