deploy_local_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it deploys files, implying a mutation operation, but says nothing about side effects, required permissions, authentication, whether an existing Cloud Run service is updated or a new one created, or what happens on failure. For a deployment tool with significant side effects, this is a major gap.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste. The core action and usage condition are front-loaded. The minor grammar error ('exists' instead of 'exist') is negligible. It earns a 4 for being concise and to the point, though it could have added behavioral context without sacrificing brevity.

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 deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain deployment behavior, what the result will be, whether it is destructive, or any prerequisites (e.g., gcloud auth, project existence). The high schema coverage partially compensates for parameter details, but the overall operation context is missing, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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% – every parameter has a description, including the guidance on 'project' to have the user confirm it. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates 'absolute file paths' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 local files to Cloud Run') and the resource (local filesystem files as an array of absolute paths). It distinguishes from likely siblings like deploy_file_contents and deploy_local_folder by the 'local files' phrasing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation that would merit a 5.

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 gives an explicit condition: 'Use this tool if the files exists on the user local filesystem.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over deploy_file_contents (which likely handles in-memory content) or deploy_local_folder. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention the other deploy tools as explicit alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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