deploy_site_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: walks directory tree, hashes files, uploads only missing bytes, skips .git/node_modules/.DS_Store, rejects symlinks, and performs no S3 PUTs on unchanged re-deploys. This is comprehensive for a deployment tool.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, mechanism, constraints, and cost implications. No redundant or unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers the tool's operation and constraints well but does not explain the return value or deployment outcome. Since there is no output schema, mentioning what the agent can expect (e.g., deployment URL, status) would improve completeness. The given context signals (no output schema, 3 params) suggest a moderate complexity 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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters. The description repeats some information from the schema (e.g., skipping file types) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Deploy a static site from a local directory' and details the process (walk, hash, upload only new bytes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like deploy_site by specifying local directory deployment and mentioning the v1.32 plan/commit transport.

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 implies usage for deploying static sites from local directories and mentions cost ('Free with active tier'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_site or deploy_function, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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