List Deployments

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent nature of the operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that each deployment exposes its bound version number and that this enables verification of which version is served.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the most important distinguishing behavior. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 simple read-only list operation with two fully described parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what extra information it provides, and why that information matters.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to because the schema fully covers them.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all deployments for a script project'), and explains the key distinguishing detail that each deployment includes its bound version number. This makes it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like manage_deployment or list_versions without opening schemas.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list deployments and verify which version is served. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario.

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