Deploy status (SSH)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the execution path (the user's own ssh), the allowlist constraint (host must be in PLESK_DEPLOY_SSH_HOSTS), that no sudo is required, the ordering of results, and a prompt-injection warning about server/file text. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and that readOnlyHint/idempotentHint cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return shape, then usage scenarios, then the safety caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

A read-only inspection tool with an output schema, two fully described parameters, and rich annotations — the description still covers transport, privilege level, result ordering, and untrusted-content handling. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already fully documented, including the pattern and the PLESK_DEPLOY_SSH_HOSTS constraint. The description restates the ssh/allowlist context rather than adding new semantics such as alias resolution rules or what happens on an unknown alias, 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 concrete verb and mechanism: runs `<app>-deploy --status` over the user's ssh, and names the exact return shape (releases newest first, commits, live release, failed releases). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like deploy_logs and rollback.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: inspecting current deployment, before a rollback to show which release would become live, and after a rollback to confirm. It does not explicitly exclude the closest alternative (deploy_logs), so the routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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