create_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the name is server-generated and cannot be chosen, that files must include index.html, and that the app is served as static content by nginx. It omits details like error conditions or side effects beyond publication, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Each paragraph adds meaningful detail—file format, naming constraints, and deployment environment—without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is quite complete for a creation tool with an output schema: it covers the required file structure, naming behavior, and deployment constraints. The main gap is the missing explanation of the requested_by parameter, and it doesn't mention potential error cases, but overall it informs the agent sufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a precise format for the files parameter and explains the purpose of description, but requested_by is not mentioned. This leaves one parameter semantically undocumented, making the compensation incomplete.

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 creates and publishes a new static web app and returns its generated name and URL. It is specific about the resource (static web app) and action (create/publish), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool publish_app, which could overlap in meaning.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for creating a new static site, requiring an index.html, and it explicitly states the limitation of no server-side runtime or database. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the requirements and exclusions give practical guidance.

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