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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only status lookup, enumerates the possible statuses, and notes the conditional build-progress behavior for approved requests. This is adequate for a low-risk check operation.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds useful information: what is checked, the possible statuses, and the conditional progress detail.

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 single-parameter status-check tool, the description covers the core behavior and expected result categories. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of statuses and build progress provides sufficient guidance for an agent to call and interpret the tool without missing critical context.

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%, and the single parameter requestId is already documented as coming from submit_app's reply. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Lihat') and resource ('sebuah pengajuan'), and clarifies the exact scope: status values (menunggu/disetujui/ditolak) plus build progress when approved. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like submit_app or update_app, which are about creating or modifying submissions.

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 tool is clearly positioned as the status lookup after a submission exists, and the requestId parameter description says it comes from submit_app's reply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lihat' signals a read-only listing and the status qualifiers ('sudah tayang', 'masih berjalan') add filter semantics. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, authorization, or what happens when there are no results.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds scope or status information, and the list-like structure matches the tool's purpose.

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 the simple zero-parameter design and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what the tool returns conceptually: the account's published apps and ongoing submissions. It could be more complete by noting read-only guarantees or result set behavior, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Lihat' (view) and names the resource precisely: all published apps ('aplikasi yang sudah tayang') and ongoing submissions ('pengajuan yang masih berjalan') belonging to the current account. This separates it from the sibling tools, which validate, submit, check status, or update rather than list.

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?

It clearly implies the appropriate context: use when the agent needs an overview of the current account's published apps and in-progress submissions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that publication is immediate with no admin review, that apps pass through structure and secret scanning, that rejection errors always explain what to fix, and that duplicate subdomains are rejected. It does not mention authentication or the exact success response, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first gives the prerequisite, the second clarifies new-app-only submission, the third explains rejection handling, and the fourth distinguishes update_app. There is no filler, and the information is logically ordered.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the prerequisite, validation flow, immediate publication behavior, error recovery, and sibling distinction. The main gap is that it does not describe what a successful submit_app call returns, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning—such as treating 'path' as the local project folder and 'subdomain' as the requested, unused subdomain—but it does not substantially improve on the schema's parameter explanations.

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 that submit_app publishes a new local project as a brand-new app to Bedengan App Hub, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from update_app by explicitly saying already-live apps must use update_app instead, so there is no confusion with siblings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call validate_project first and ensure its result is 'ok': true, use submit_app only for new apps, and use update_app for apps that are already live. It also warns that an already-used subdomain will be rejected, preventing an obvious misuse.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that passing validation immediately replaces the live version with no review, that the old version is automatically saved, and that rollback is possible via the web dashboard. This gives the agent a clear picture of the destructive yet recoverable behavior.

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 front-loaded with the mandatory prerequisite, then states the core action, and then explains the deployment and rollback consequences. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the required prerequisite, the effect, and the recovery path. It does not describe the return value of update_app itself, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%, with both path and appId already described. The description reinforces that appId comes from list_my_apps and that path refers to the local folder, but it adds no substantially new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it overwrites an already-live app owned by this account with new code from a local folder. It clearly distinguishes this from a new submission by emphasizing 'SUDAH live' and by tying prerequisites to validate_project and list_my_apps.

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 instructs that validate_project must be called first and its result must be 'ok': true, and that appId comes from list_my_apps. It does not explicitly name submit_app as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, but the 'already live' scope strongly implies the boundary.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses that the tool does not submit, queue, or record anything, and it describes the response contents: detected app type, ignorable warnings, and hard errors that cause rejection. It also clarifies the consequences of errors on later submit/update calls.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: mandatory call order, side-effect transparency, response schema, error handling, and the retry loop. The critical instruction is front-loaded ('WAJIB dipanggil LEBIH DULU'), and examples are used efficiently to clarify warning versus error severity.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing exactly what the response will contain and how to interpret it. It also explains the tool's non-mutating behavior, the consequences of hard errors, and the exact follow-up path. Nothing essential for correctly invoking and acting on this tool is missing.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, `path`, as an absolute local project folder path. The description adds context that this folder will be zipped and validated, but it does not introduce new parameter-specific constraints or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: zip a local project folder and validate it through Bedengan App Hub without submitting anything. It also clearly distinguishes this from submit_app/update_app by saying it never queues or records anything, so the agent knows exactly what the tool is for.

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?

It explicitly mandates when to use the tool: always before submit_app or update_app, and even explains why ('tidak ada admin yang meninjau lagi'). It also gives the retry workflow: fix only mentioned issues, revalidate until 'ok': true, only then proceed. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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