get-status

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 description's burden is lower. The description adds value by listing possible statuses (pending, building, built, deploying, running, failed, stopped) and mentioning the URL format ({slug}.sota.io), which helps the agent understand the lifecycle. It does not discuss rate limits or potential staleness of status, but these are acceptable omissions for a simple read tool.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists statuses, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, simple schema, clear annotations, and no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (URL, framework, history), defines statuses, and clarifies the expected use case. The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing the parameter 'project_id' as a UUID and referencing 'list-projects' to find it. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current deployment status for a project'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'deploy' (which triggers deployment) and 'get-logs' (which retrieves logs) by specifying the exact output: live URL, detected framework, and deployment history. The description also lists deployment statuses, adding precision.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to verify a deployment succeeded after calling deploy.' This directly helps the agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'get-logs' (for troubleshooting) or 'deploy' (to initiate). No alternative exclusions are needed since the use case is singular.

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