suggest_deployments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does ('suggest optimal deployment locations') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it performs read-only analysis, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('suggest optimal deployment locations') and provides necessary context concisely, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly. The description is complete enough for a simple tool but could benefit from more context about output or constraints.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately does not include parameter information, and it adds value by explaining the tool's purpose without redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero parameters, indicating it handles the lack of parameters well.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('optimal deployment locations'), and it provides context about the basis for suggestions ('based on current network topology and device capabilities'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deploy_infrastructure' or 'plan_terraform_service', which might have overlapping or related functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 in contexts involving network topology and device capabilities, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for planning before deployment or for real-time suggestions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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