Get deployment status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the fallback behavior from Deployment to StatefulSet and the specific status dimensions reported, which adds valuable behavioral context.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence front-loads the core action and result, then adds the fallback behavior. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the main behavioral nuance (Deployment-to-StatefulSet fallback). The only notable gap is parameter semantics, particularly the optional namespace, but overall the definition is sufficiently complete for a read-only status 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain 'name' or 'namespace' beyond implying the name refers to a Deployment/StatefulSet. The 'same name' phrasing gives partial meaning to 'name', but 'namespace' remains entirely undocumented.

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 ('report') and resource ('Deployment', with StatefulSet fallback) and names the exact information returned: desired vs ready replicas and rollout conditions. This clearly separates it from generic status or pod-level sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings like verify_deployment, diagnose_deployment, or get_pods. The StatefulSet fallback is a behavioral detail, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer the right context.

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