Src101 Deploys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It only describes the data shape, not how the tool behaves.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core concept and then lists the fields. It is efficient, though the abbreviation 'pri' for pricing tiers adds mild ambiguity. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description conveys the purpose and row contents, which is adequate for a list endpoint, especially given that an output schema exists. However, it omits usage context like pagination semantics or how this tool fits into the broader SRC-101 workflow. It is not completely inadequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the page and limit parameters beyond what the schema already shows. The description enumerates output fields but provides no additional meaning for the input parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them effectively.

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 resource as SRC-101 deployments, gives a concrete example (BitNameService 'btc' names), and enumerates the row fields. It implicitly differentiates from sibling list_src20_deploys by naming the SRC-101 namespace, but it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_src20_deploys or get_src20. The description only defines the content, not the selection criteria or context in which this tool is preferred.

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