Generate Project Deployment Runbook (v1.6.0)

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool connects to servers (gathers SSH credentials, OS info) and generates a local file. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent, but the description could be more transparent about network access requirements or potential side effects like creating files on the server. Still, it provides meaningful insight.

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?

Single sentence that conveys purpose and key actions efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Gathers' and specifies the output. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for input vs output), but overall concise without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main output (local markdown file) and lists gathered information. However, it omits error scenarios (e.g., if server unreachable) and prerequisites (e.g., SSH key setup). For a simple documentation tool, this is mostly complete, but minor gaps remain.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by explaining that app_path is auto-resolvable and that the tool gathers additional info (server IP, SSH creds, etc.) not listed as parameters. This informs the agent of what data it collects behind the scenes.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gathers server and config info to generate a deployment runbook markdown file. It uses specific verbs ('gathers', 'generate') and identifies the resource (DEPLOYMENT_RUNBOOK.md). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like plan_dynamic_deployment or setup_nginx_reverse_proxy, which perform actual deployment actions rather than documentation.

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 mentions 'for manual ops and handovers', indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit differentiation (e.g., 'for automated deployment use plan_dynamic_deployment').

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