list_deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds helpful behavioral detail beyond annotations, such as 'include_payload' producing a 'larger response' and including specific fields, and 'include_readme' adding README content. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line summary, the backed endpoint, then a short Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, filtering, and optional response enrichment, and the annotations handle the safety profile. The only minor gap is that it does not mention pagination or the default response shape, though the lack of an output schema makes this less critical.

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 carry the parameter documentation, and it does. It explains that ids filters the result, include_payload controls specific extra fields and warns of a larger response, and include_readme adds README markdown. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List Serverless API deployments in the caller's account.' It clearly identifies the operation as listing deployments, specifies the account scope, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_deployment and create_deployment.

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 clear context for listing deployments and documents optional filter flags, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_deployment for a single deployment or when not to use this tool. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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