deployment_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that results are 'grouped by platform' and includes 'local-only' status, but it does not disclose whether this is a live fetch, cached snapshot, or whether any auth/network behavior is involved. That gap is moderate for a zero-parameter overview 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose, enumerates the full scope of platforms, and adds the output grouping constraint without 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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what is covered and how the output is organized. It could additionally hint at whether the overview includes statuses or health, but the current level is sufficient for correct invocation and expectations.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter meaning when there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies the resource (deployment overview) and enumerates the specific platforms covered: Vercel, VPS, Netlify, Railway, Docker, and local-only. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or git_overview, though it does not explicitly frame it as a verb like 'return' or 'map'.

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 phrase 'Full deployment overview' plus the platform enumeration gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when an agent needs to see deployment targets across environments. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, but the scope is well implied by the description.

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