check_deploy_prerequisites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verbs 'Check' and 'Shows status' clearly indicate a non-destructive read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no system modifications occur or describe any permissions/requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then lists the exact items checked. Every word earns its place; no 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 simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explicitly lists all CLIs covered and states that it shows availability, which fully satisfies the user's likely need.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description fills the schema's empty space with context about what is being checked.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as deployment CLIs, listing all nine tools it inspects. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deployment and provisioning tools, which perform actions rather than inspect prerequisites.

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 this is a pre-deployment checklist but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used before deploy_to_* or orchestrate_deploy, leaving the usage context to inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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