liara_start_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start an app (scale up)' implies a mutation that changes the app's state, but it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible (e.g., via 'stop_app'), potential downtime, or rate limits. The phrase 'scale up' hints at resource allocation but lacks detail on what that entails.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Start an app') and includes a clarifying note ('scale up') in parentheses. Every element serves a 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what 'scale up' means operationally), error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity of starting/scaling an app, more context is needed for the agent to use it effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the app to start'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 'Start an app (scale up)' clearly states the action (start) and resource (app), with 'scale up' providing additional context about the effect. It distinguishes from siblings like 'restart_app' (which implies the app is already running) and 'stop_app' (opposite action), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the app must exist and be stopped), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'restart_app' or 'resize_app'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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