check_github_deployable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds: it explicitly states the tool is read-only and never changes the repository, describes the shape of the return value (problems, warnings, workflow_to_add), and gives concrete examples of warnings such as missing teardown triggers and 128MB simulation limits.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose first, usage second, then return behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, with no filler or 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?

Given two self-documenting parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and its safety profile. An agent can decide to invoke it and interpret its results correctly.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond referring to repos and local folders, matching the schema. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: it says whether a repository or folder would deploy a mock and what is missing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_mock_from_url, wait_for_github_deploy, or publish_to_github.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: when the user has a repo and asks whether it can serve mocks, or before adding the action to a repo. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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