deploy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only action via the word '查看' (view) and names the status areas observed. However, it does not disclose requirements like SSH access, potential side effects, or the response format, leaving gaps beyond what is stated.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides specific examples of what is checked. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no nested objects, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the target (remote server/project), and the kinds of status supplied. The only missing piece is an explicit return format, but the informational content is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (server name and project path) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to given the schema's completeness.

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 function—viewing deployment status on a remote server—and enumerates concrete items inspected (Git status, PM2/Docker processes, port listening). This specific verb-plus-resource phrasing distinguishes it from related siblings like deploy_project or server_exec.

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 a clear usage context: inspect deployment state for a project on a given server. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately without confusion.

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