vibecloud_app_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: 'hoàn toàn offline' discloses zero network dependence, and 'không thực thi code dự án' discloses that project code is never executed — the two safety-critical traits an agent needs before invoking a scanner. It does not cover error behavior or side effects like cache writes, but for a local read-only detector the disclosed traits are the essential behavioral contract.

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 definition is bilingual and repeats the alias fact twice ('Alias tương thích của cloud_app_detect' / 'Compatibility alias'), and the long Vietnamese capability sentence is then compressed into 'Detect a local app without network,' losing the output-field detail in the English half. The core facts are present and front-loaded, but the duplication means not every clause earns its place.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is near-complete: it enumerates the return payload fields (stack, port, start, Dockerfile, build_type, .env.example names), states the behavioral contract, and places itself among siblings via the alias declaration. Minor gaps remain — what happens on an invalid or nonexistent local_dir, and whether behavior is byte-for-byte identical to cloud_app_detect — but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 for the lone required parameter. It does so only implicitly: 'Detect a local app' and 'không thực thi code dự án' strongly imply local_dir is a project directory path, but no sentence names local_dir or specifies format, absolute-vs-relative, or existence requirements. The meaning is guessable but not documented.

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 and resource — 'Nhận diện... local app' (detect a local app) — and enumerates the exact detection outputs: 'Node/Next/Vite/Python/PHP/static, port, start, Dockerfile, build_type và tên biến .env.example.' It further differentiates itself from siblings by declaring 'Alias tương thích của cloud_app_detect,' so an agent can tell it apart from the cloud_app_detect twin and the other cloud_app_*/vibecloud_app_* tools.

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 gives clear context for when the tool fits — detecting a local app's stack and run configuration purely offline — but never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or what it should NOT be used for. The alias statement implies interchangeability with cloud_app_detect, but exclusions (e.g., 'use cloud_app_create for provisioning') are absent; usage is therefore implied rather than directed.

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