cloud_app_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states two key traits: the operation is completely offline and it does not execute project code, and it also lists what will be detected. It does not describe behavior on invalid or missing directories, but the core safety profile is clearly communicated.

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 short and front-loaded with the output list and safety constraint, making it easy to scan. The bilingual phrasing creates slight redundancy, but both parts are brief and the English sentence serves as a compact summary.

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 one-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description covers both what the tool detects and the important safety guarantee, so an agent can predict the call's behavior and likely return content. The main gap is the absence of explicit error behavior for missing or unsupported directories, but that is minor given the enumerated output fields.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, local_dir, so the natural-language description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies that local_dir refers to a local project/app directory whose stack and metadata will be detected. However, it does not state path format, whether the directory must exist, or what happens if detection fails, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific action (detect/nhận diện) on a local app and enumerates concrete outputs: Node/Next/Vite/Python/PHP/static, port, start, Dockerfile, build_type, and .env.example variable names. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling app lifecycle tools like cloud_app_create, cloud_app_list, and cloud_app_get, which operate on deployed resources rather than local directories.

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 clearly implies this is for analyzing a local directory, and the 'offline / no code execution' note gives useful safety context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it before cloud_app_deploy or using cloud_app_get for an already-deployed app. The routing guidance is left to inference.

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