get_job_deployments

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and omits critical details like pagination, permissions, response format, or whether the namespace is required. This is a significant gap for a tool relying solely on its description.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. While it is appropriately sized for a simple action, it underspecifies key details, but as a conciseness measure it efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter semantics, or any use-case context, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the 'id' or 'namespace' parameters. It does not clarify that 'id' likely refers to a job ID, nor does it specify how 'namespace' affects the query. The description provides no value beyond the raw parameter names in the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('deployments') with a clear scope ('for a job'), distinguishing it from general deployment tools like list_deployments and get_deployment. It could be more explicit about the id referring to a job ID, but the tool name and schema reinforce this correctly.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the related sibling tools such as list_deployments or get_deployment. The description does not state any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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