ck_deployment_advisor

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

Without annotations, the description fully explains the three modes and their read/write nature: 'analyze (read-only)..., generate_files (write operation)..., dns_guide (read-only).' It also discloses the dry_run option for previewing file generation. Missing details about side effects of generating files (e.g., overwriting existing files) slightly reduce the score from 5.

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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured: overview sentence, mode enumeration with parenthetical explanations, usage guidance, and alternative tool reference. No filler or redundant information.

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 (three modes, write operation, dry_run), the description covers the essential behavioral and usage information. Lack of output schema means return values are not specified, but the description notes that return shape depends on mode. Minor gaps (e.g., file overwriting behavior) prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema has 67% coverage (missing dry_run description). The description compensates by explaining dry_run's purpose ('preview what would be created without writing files') and elaborates on the mode parameter by detailing each mode's behavior. project_root is already clear from schema. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Analyze the project stack and suggest deployment platforms, or generate CI/CD and Docker configuration files.' It enumerates three distinct modes with specific behaviors, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like ck_budget.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use ck_deployment_advisor before deploying a new project or when setting up CI/CD for the first time.' It also directs to an alternative tool: 'For budget and cost checks before deployment, use ck_budget.' This clearly states when to use and when not to use this tool.

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