get_project_deploy_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and non-mutating. The description adds context about relying on a config file, which is helpful but does not extend beyond the safety profile already captured by annotations. No contradictions.

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, complete sentence that conveys the essential information without any unnecessary words, filler, or redundancy. It earns its place perfectly.

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 simplicity of the tool (one param, read-only, no output schema) and the richness of annotations, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It could optionally mention that the status is returned in some format, but the absence is not critical for selecting the tool.

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 single parameter (project_path) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description does not add any new meaning or usage nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check deployment status'), the target resource ('deployment status for the current project'), and the mechanism ('using .ploi.json config'). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools focused on deployment execution (deploy_project), creation, or deletion.

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 for checking deployment status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like deploy_project or get_deploy_script. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, timing, or specific scenarios.

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