app_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions delegation and the result envelope but fails to disclose whether the tool is destructive, idempotent, requires authentication, or triggers side effects. The existence of a 'dry_run' parameter implies a planning mode, but this is not highlighted in the description.

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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

Despite 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the workflow lifecycle, when to use 'plan' vs 'run', how the envelope can be used, or error scenarios. For a complex tool, this is insufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description provides high-level context ('plan or run workflow') but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already describes.

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 verb 'plan or run' and identifies the resource as 'the canonical app-aware run402 up workflow from a local path or repo URL'. It mentions the delegated action and return envelope, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'init' or 'deploy_site'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose 'plan' vs 'run', or scenarios where another tool (e.g., deploy, init) is more appropriate.

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