oc_new_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the main action but omits important behavioral details such as automatic namespace creation (createNamespace defaults to true), what OpenShift resources are created (BuildConfig, DeploymentConfig, Service, Route), and behavior if the app already exists. This is limited transparency for a mutating tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, is free of filler, and every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for its 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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks context on the overall workflow, prerequisites, side effects, and how parameters relate (e.g., how builderImage interacts with strategy). The description does not explain what the user should expect to happen after invoking the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; references to 'S2I build' and 'edge-terminated route' are already reflected in parameters like strategy and exposeRoute. No further parameter interaction or format details are given.

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 action ('Create a new application'), the resource ('from a GitHub repository'), and the method ('using S2I build and expose it with an edge-terminated route'). This distinguishes it from siblings like oc_create (generic create) and oc_expose (route-only).

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 context is implied: this tool is for creating a new app from a GitHub repo with S2I. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among sibling tools such as oc_create or oc_apply. No exclusions or decision criteria are provided.

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