pm_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists steps (build, push, Ansible playbook, Traefik config, health checks) but omits details like whether the tool is destructive, requires specific permissions, or handles rollbacks. The description gives a high-level view but lacks depth.

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 sentence that covers all key actions. While somewhat lengthy, it is efficient and contains no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the major steps of deployment. It provides a clear overview but lacks details on error scenarios or outputs. For a deploy tool, it is adequately 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (baseline 4). The description does not need to add param info; it focuses on the tool's actions, which is appropriate.

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 purpose: to deploy the Puppet Master project to a VPS. It lists specific steps (build, push, Ansible, Traefik, health checks), making it distinct from sibling tools like pm_build (only builds) or pm_rollback (rollback).

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 when a deployment is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pm_build as a prerequisite) or provide any constraints. No guidance on exclusions or context.

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