list_deployments

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns a formatted string and mentions an injected Google API service client, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe pagination or formatting behaviors, leaving some ambiguity.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact Args/Returns structure. Every line earns its place without redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key context: the operation, the parameters, the injected service, and the return type. It could further explain what fields appear in the formatted deployment list or note read-only behavior, but the essentials are sufficient.

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 must compensate. It defines both actual parameters: user_google_email as the user's email address and script_id as the script project ID, while clarifying that service is an injected client rather than a caller-provided parameter. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Lists all deployments for a script project.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_script_projects and list_versions, which target different resources, and manage_deployment, which implies mutation.

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 the tool is for retrieving deployment information for a script project, which gives basic context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it, nor does it name alternatives such as manage_deployment or list_versions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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