bless_deployment

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 states the tool judges and returns a result, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements. The outcome format is partially described but lacks detail on the structure of the blessing or admonishment.

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 efficiently convey purpose, method, and output. No redundant or superfluous information. The humorous tone does not detract from clarity.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output conceptually but does not detail the return structure, failure modes, or how parameters influence the outcome. Given the complexity, additional guidance on parameter combinations or example usage would improve completeness.

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 parameter's purpose is documented. The description adds thematic context ('doctrinally-themed') but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no clarifications of dependencies or validation rules). 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 identifies the tool as a Kubernetes deployment checker themed around religious blessing. It specifies the action (submit a deployment), the criteria (Sacred Manifest), and the outcome (blessing or admonishment with violations). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like confess_sin or get_daily_verse.

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 usage as a 'pre-flight checklist' for Kubernetes workloads, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., diagnose_incident) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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