Deploy log (SSH)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact execution path (sudo -n <app>-deploy --log <lines> over the user's own SSH), the fact that the log is root-only and reachable through a single sudo rule, the host-allowlist constraint via PLESK_DEPLOY_SSH_HOSTS, and secret redaction. It also flags untrusted-content risk, which is material for a tool returning server text.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the operation, its mechanism and its scope come first, then safety context, then the usage trigger. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph would scan faster as short clauses and the injection warning, while relevant, adds a fifth idea to a single block.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the auth/permission story plus redaction are covered. Minor gap: nothing says what happens when the log is shorter than `lines`, when the host alias is not allowlisted, or whether the sudo call can fail in a way the agent should surface.

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 each of the three parameters is already documented in-schema (app naming, host alias allowlist, lines default/max). The description reinforces the host allowlist and the app naming convention but adds no new meaning such as log-format or truncation behavior for `lines`, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns the last lines of the release manager's deploy log — and pins down scope precisely (last N lines, per host/app). An agent can distinguish this from deploy_status or github_deploy_runs without opening any schema.

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: when a deploy or rollback failed, to read what the release manager did. That covers the primary trigger, but no sibling alternative is named (e.g. deploy_status for current state vs. this tool for historical log text) and no explicit when-not case is given.

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