rollout-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'rollout status' actually means, what information it returns, whether it has side effects, or any authentication/permission requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'rollout status' means, what format the information returns, or how this differs from other deployment-related tools in the extensive sibling list. The context signals indicate this is a simple tool, but the description leaves too many practical usage questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides about 'deployment' and 'namespace' parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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') and target ('rollout status of a deployment'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'rollout-history' or 'describe-deployment' that might also provide deployment status information, preventing 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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'describe-deployment', 'rollout-history', 'list-deployments', and 'argocd-app-status' that might provide overlapping or related functionality, there's no indication of when this specific rollout status check is preferred or appropriate.

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