Critical gaps across all dimensions. Tool descriptions are minimal (6-30 chars), far below the 194-char baseline. No input parameter descriptions visible for any tool. Schemas present but lack parameter-level documentation. Tool names lack clarity (e.g., 'purr_plan_deployment' is vague about what 'plan' means). No evidence of output schema documentation. Error handling and recovery guidance absent. Security considerations (secret injection, permission gates) not visible in tool definitions.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 chars. Example: 'get_verification_summary' → 'Retrieve a summary of the latest verification run, including pass/fail status, test counts, and execution time. Call this first to check overall health before diving into detailed results.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify returned fields, types, and which IDs/references downstream tools need. Example: get_verification_summary should document whether it returns job_id, timestamp, status enum values.
• Add parameter descriptions to all tools, even those with empty input schemas. Clarify what each tool returns and when to call it relative to other tools.
• Rename ambiguous tools: 'purr_plan_deployment' → 'create_deployment_plan' or 'validate_deployment_plan' (clarify intent). 'purr_check_health' → 'check_server_health' or 'check_verification_runner_health'.
• Add error handling guidance: document which errors are retryable, which require user input, and what the LLM should do next. Example: 'If job not found, call get_latest_verification to fetch the most recent run.'