sailfish_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a deployment, implying a write operation that modifies the target device/emulator, but lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing installations), error conditions, or output behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's complexity (a deployment operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover critical aspects like success/failure outcomes, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., requiring a prior build). This leaves the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('projectDir' and 'device'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Deploy') and the target ('an already-built RPM to a connected device or emulator'), specifying the method ('via sfdk'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sailfish_build' (which builds) and 'sailfish_create_project' (which creates), but does not explicitly contrast with them in the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an RPM must be built first using 'sailfish_build'), nor does it specify scenarios where deployment might fail or should be avoided.

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