suggest_deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe, non-mutating suggestion. The description adds little beyond the annotations, merely specifying the input context. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence of 14 words. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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 description adequately states the tool's purpose and basis, but given zero parameters and no output schema, it leaves ambiguity about what 'suggest' entails (e.g., return format, how optimal is determined). The large sibling set suggests a need for clearer differentiation, which is missing. A score of 3 reflects acceptable but incomplete guidance.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. No additional parameter info is required, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'suggest' on the resource 'deployment locations' and mentions the basis ('current network topology and device capabilities'), making the purpose clear. However, it lacks specificity about what 'optimal' means and what the output format is, preventing a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_network_topology' or 'deploy_infrastructure'. No explicit context, exclusions, or when-not conditions are given.

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