Status wdrozenia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful informational context about what the status reports, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as polling behavior, output shape, or error conditions. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then adds only meaningful detail about the status content. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the essential return semantics, the schema covers inputs, and the annotations cover side-effect safety. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit usage note, but not much is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both 'org' and 'site' adequately. The description repeats 'site' but adds no new meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Pokazuje'/'shows') and a clear resource ('status wdrożenia site'/'deployment status of site'), and it spells out exactly what is reported: whether the deployment is ongoing, finished, and when it started. This differentiates it from nearby tools like forge_get_deployment_log, which handles logs rather than status.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forge_deploy_site, forge_list_deployments, or forge_get_deployment_log. The agent is left to infer that this is the status lookup tool based only on the name and generic description.

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