cloud_app_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself and does state this is a read/inspect operation, which implies no destructive side effects. It adds useful context about deployment timing (first host 2-3 minutes, subsequent deploys 10-20 seconds), but it does not disclose output structure, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond that.

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 mixed-language, somewhat redundant jumble: the same statement appears in Vietnamese and English, and the deployment timing note is placed before the core purpose. The key phrase 'Inspect app' is buried at the end, and the sentence about host timing would be better as secondary context.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must supply context on its own. It lists some returned fields and gives deployment timing, but it omits the meaning of the app_id parameter, how output is structured, and when to choose this tool over the many sibling app tools, leaving notable gaps.

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 only 50%; the sandbox parameter has a description in the schema, but app_id has none and the tool description does not explain it either. The description names return fields but never connects them to the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented app_id.

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 identifies the tool as an inspection/read operation for a single app, enumerating the data it returns: status, URL, deployments, and app host. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools like cloud_app_list and cloud_app_host_list by focusing on a single app's details, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

The description implies this tool is used after an app has been deployed from Git, with timing context for the first host and subsequent deploys, and its purpose is to read app status/URL/deployments. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as cloud_app_list, cloud_app_detect, or cloud_app_logs.

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