yaaif_mcp_deployments_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'List MCP deployments' – it does not mention pagination, filtering, return format, whether it is read-only (though implied), any side effects, or error behavior. For a list operation, an agent would benefit from knowing if it returns a summary, statuses, or just names, but this is absent.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no wasted wording. However, it is perhaps too terse, but the structure itself is efficient. It earns a high score for conciseness, though the lack of detail affects other dimensions.

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 two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'q' and 'limit' do, what the return value looks like, or any filtering or pagination behavior. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without guessing at the parameter semantics.

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?

The schema has two parameters (q and limit) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, so an agent has no idea what 'q' or 'limit' control. Since the schema provides no context, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails entirely.

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 action (List) and resource (MCP deployments), and adds specificity with the parenthetical '(api-server / deployment-service)', which clarifies the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like yaaif_mcp_servers_list (which lists servers, not deployments) and yaaif_mcp_deployment_status (which gets status, not a list). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over yaaif_mcp_servers_list, yaaif_mcp_deployment_status, or any other related tool. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should select it.

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