deploy_local

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

The description discloses key behaviors: auto-detection, running dev commands, and handling dependency installation, migrations, and seeding. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does add some context. However, it omits potential side effects like modifying project files, network access, or failure handling, leaving room for more transparency.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence names the core action, and the second adds essential behavior. No filler or repetition of schema content, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks detail on return values, long-running behavior, or prerequisites. It covers the main workflow but not enough to fully inform an agent about edge cases (e.g., what happens if migrations are skipped or if the port is busy).

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, covering 100% of the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'handles dependency installation, migrations, and seeding' aligns with parameters like installDeps, runMigrations, and seedCommand, but it adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already tells the agent. The description provides context but not additional parameter-level detail.

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 primary action: 'Start the project locally as a native development server.' It specifies the resource (project) and the mode (local), distinguishing it from sibling tools like deploy_to_vercel or deploy_to_railway. The auto-detection of project types adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 explicitly indicates local usage ('Start the project locally') and implies a development context, which contrasts with cloud deployment siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'use deploy_to_vercel for production'), so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for local development.

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