deploy_project

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

The description reveals meaningful behavior beyond the name: git pull, npm install, build, PM2/Docker restart, and custom script execution. With no annotations, it still does not disclose side effects, prerequisites such as credentials, or the risk of restarting/overwriting remote services, so it only partially carries the transparency burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys purpose and key capabilities with no filler or repetition. It is compact but informative.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and 4 distinct methods, the description does not explain orchestration (e.g., how build/restart interact with each method, whether upload requires a source path, or what the tool returns). No output schema is provided, so an agent would struggle to predict response format or side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The prose adds no parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing methods already documented in the enum description (git-pull, upload, docker, script).

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 opens with a specific action and object: '将项目部署到远程服务器' (deploy a project to a remote server), then enumerates supported deployment methods. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like deploy_status (status checking) and server_exec (generic command execution).

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 context is clear: this is the deployment tool for projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over server_exec or how to choose among the four methods in terms of use cases, leaving the agent to infer routing from the method names.

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