App Report

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 explicitly declares 'Side effects: none (read-only)' and also reveals the underlying command ('Runs ps:report <app>'), giving useful operational context beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: the purpose, the read-only safety note, and the underlying command. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, this description covers the essential facts: what it does, that it is safe, and the underlying command. It could mention using list_apps to discover valid app names, but that is a minor omission.

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 clarifies that 'app' refers to a Dokku app and is used in the command `ps:report <app>`, but it does not elaborate on naming constraints, how to find valid app names, or error behavior for nonexistent apps.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('process report for a Dokku app'), and examples of content ('running state, scale, etc.'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like app_config or app_logs.

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 when to use it: whenever a process-level report for a Dokku app is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to the agent's inference.

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