list_deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds behavioral context by revealing what the list contains (versions, live status, public URL), but it does not mention pagination, scope constraints, or how organizationId affects results. That is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource and the valuable return information with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the key action word 'List' appears first.

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 covers the main return values, which is important because there is no output schema. However, with no parameter descriptions and no mention of organizationId's role, the definition leaves notable gaps for correct invocation in multi-organization contexts. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not define appId or organizationId beyond what the bare property names imply. The phrase 'of an app' loosely maps to appId, but organizationId is entirely unaddressed. This is a significant gap for a tool with two parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('hosted-frontend deployments of an app'), and the key output dimensions ('versions, which one is live, and the public URL'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately recognizable and distinct from sibling tools like deploy_frontend or rollback_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 clearly implies the use case: when you need to inspect an app's frontend deployments, identify the live version, or get its public URL. It provides clear context with no exclusions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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