ck_deployment_advisor

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: marks analyze and dns_guide as read-only, generate_files as write, and dry_run as non-destructive preview. While annotations lack detail, the description compensates. Could mention file overwrite behavior or permission needs, but current detail is strong.

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?

Five well-structured sentences. Front-loaded with core purpose, then details modes, dry_run, usage context, and alternative tool. No unnecessary words; each sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (no need to describe returns), the description covers all essential context: modes, required param, safe preview, use cases, and sibling comparison. Complete for a deployment advisor 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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: for dry_run (missing schema description), explains its purpose with generate_files. For mode, clarifies the three enum values' behaviors. For project_root, confirms it's required. Schema covers 67% of params; description fills the gap effectively.

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 purpose: analyzing project stacks to suggest deployment platforms and generating CI/CD/Docker configs. It explicitly lists three modes (analyze, generate_files, dns_guide), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ck_budget mentioned in the usage guidance.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'before deploying a new project or when setting up CI/CD for the first time.' It also gives an alternative tool (ck_budget) for budget checks, and explains the dry_run option for safe preview.

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