Test that an app builds, passes tests and runs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the step-by-step behavior including running tests/build, starting the app, checking HTTP responses without server errors, and cleanly stopping it. It could additionally mention potential side effects like build artifacts or timeouts, but the overall behavior is well conveyed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core process, and every word earns its place. No fluff or 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what happens, when to use it, and what to do next (open returned URL). It lacks specifics on error behavior or return value structure, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 60% with url, appPath, and startCommand described. The description adds flow context (e.g., 'if any' for tests/build) but does not directly explain skipBuild and skipTests beyond implying optionality. It partially compensates for the missing parameter descriptions but does not fully detail their semantics.

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 starts with 'One-step app verification' and enumerates concrete actions: runs test suite, production build, starts app, checks HTTP response, and stops it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_app or deploy by specifying the exact resource (the app) and the verification workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after building or changing an app.' It also provides guidance for when not to use it for visual verification, directing the user to follow up with browser tools instead. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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