get-deployment

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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific deployment') and adds necessary detail ('by its id') without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error conditions, or usage context beyond basic identification, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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%, with one parameter ('id') undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating the parameter is used to identify 'a specific deployment', but doesn't specify the ID format, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves key details unclear.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific deployment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list-deployments' (which retrieves multiple deployments) and 'get-app'/'get-service' (which retrieve different resource types). However, it doesn't specify what information is retrieved beyond 'by its id', making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.

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 implies usage when you need a single deployment identified by its ID, as opposed to listing all deployments. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list-deployments' or other 'get-' tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some contextual gaps.

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