get_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what information is included, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a tool that likely returns complex deployment data.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action, and the second provides usage context. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (likely returning detailed deployment data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential response formats, or error handling. For a tool in a deployment management context with many siblings, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'uuid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no additional constraints or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific deployment', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like list_deployments by focusing on a single deployment rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools (e.g., get_application_logs) beyond the resource name.

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 implied usage context with 'to monitor deployment status and troubleshoot issues', suggesting when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context implies it's for detailed views rather than listings. No explicit comparison to siblings like list_deployments or other get_* tools is provided.

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