app_up

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions delegation to the SDK and a result envelope, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what 'plan only' entails (the dry_run parameter covers that in schema, but not in the main description). Lack of transparency on mutation behavior is a significant gap.

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 (55 words), front-loading the core action and following with delegation details. Every sentence adds value without 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 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but omits details on SDK return structure, step lifecycle, and how parameters like dry_run affect behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The main description adds value by explaining the high-level workflow and the return envelope ('graph steps, resources, diagnostics, next_actions'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. Baseline 3 plus extra context.

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 plans or runs the app-aware workflow, specifying the resource ('run402 up') and source ('local path or repo URL'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the canonical workflow, though it could explicitly differentiate from related tools like 'deploy'.

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 implies usage for planning or running the up workflow, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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