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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply restates the destructive 'delete' action without mentioning permanence, side effects on associated resources, permission requirements, or irreversibility. The added qualifier 'deployed' is minimal and does not disclose consequential behavior.

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, direct sentence that captures the essential operation with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation, the schema and description together allow correct invocation. However, the lack of any usage guidance or behavioral warning (destructive, irreversible, permissions) leaves gaps that matter for a deletion tool, so it is only minimally acceptable.

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 slug parameter is already well documented as 'Project slug to delete'. The description adds the 'deployed' qualifier, which slightly clarifies the target, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a deployed project from Shiped'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (deploy_to_shiped, list_shiped_projects), which both involve different operations on the same resource type.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives, prerequisites, or any conditions that would make deletion appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not why or when an agent should choose it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior (immediate URL return, shareable), but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing project), authentication needs, or error handling. For a deployment action, this is a moderate 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, zero fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and result, the second provides usage context.

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 the rich schema (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the primary outcome (URL). It could detail error cases or overwrite behavior, but for a typical deploy tool with sibling list/delete, the agent likely has enough context. Missing details are minor.

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 all parameters (html, name, type, files) already have detailed descriptions. The tool description only adds a general mention of 'HTML/CSS/JS' without enriching parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb 'Deploy' and resource 'Shiped', and the outcome (instant public HTTPS URL). It also contrasts with siblings by focusing on deployment, while siblings are list/delete. This makes it unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use context: 'Use after generating code with an AI to make it live and shareable.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling set (list/delete) makes the deployment role obvious. A brief exclusion would be nice but is not critical.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description states what is returned. However, it does not mention authentication expectations, pagination, error conditions, or whether an empty list is possible. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action 'List' and immediately states the resource and output. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 simple zero-parameter list with no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope ('user's deployed projects') and content ('URLs'). It could go further by describing the response shape or auth context, but the low complexity means no serious information gap exists.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description cannot be expected to add parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('deployed projects on Shiped'), and the output ('their URLs'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_shiped_project and deploy_to_shiped because the operation is clearly a read-only listing.

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 conveys the basic context: it lists the user's deployed projects. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the delete or deploy siblings, though the tool names imply the appropriate use case. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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