Check Hermes deploy guard

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by specifying the exact guarantees: verifies branch, HEAD, cleanliness, and path containment, and does NO fetch, checkout, restart, or config writes. This reinforces and extends the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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 dense sentence that compactly captures purpose, scope, and exclusions. Every clause earns its place. It could be slightly better structured (e.g., a second sentence separating what it verifies from what it avoids), but the current format is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and strong safety annotations. The description covers the guard's verification dimensions and its non-mutating profile, which gives an agent enough to understand the commit/preflight role. It doesn't detail return value semantics, but the presence of an output schema shifts that burden away from the description. For a read-only guard with good annotations and output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description meaningfully compensates by naming the four key verification dimensions (branch, HEAD, cleanliness, path containment). These map to expected_branch, expected_commit, require_clean_live, and source_checkout/live_checkout parameters. It doesn't explicitly document the 'home' or 'toolkit_root' params, but the 9-parameter schema with defaults and 0% coverage means the description's param naming carries real weight.

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 a specific verb (guard/check) plus a clear resource (git/live-checkout) and enumerates exactly what it verifies: branch, HEAD, cleanliness, and path containment. It also explicitly negates what it does NOT do (no fetch, checkout, restart, or config writes), which sharply distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like hermes_deploy_repair_apply or hermes_gateway_restart.

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 usage context: it's a pre-deploy safety verification step, named 'guard'. It explicitly states what operations it avoids (no fetch, checkout, restart, config writes), which signals when-not-to-expect side effects. However, it does not explicitly name alternative guard/check tools for comparison or state when this tool should or should not be used relative to siblings.

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