vibecloud_app_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read/inspect operation ('Đọc'), identifies its alias behavior, and adds useful lifecycle context about git apps (first host ~2–3 min, deploys 10–20s). However, it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or response format beyond listing four fields — notable gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Every substantive piece of information (alias identity, deployment timing, function) is relevant, but each statement is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling the length without adding content. The core function statement 'Inspect app' is back-loaded at the end rather than front-loaded.

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 simple get-style tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the fields it returns (compensating for the missing output schema), its alias equivalence, and deployment timing semantics. It lacks explicit error-handling or auth notes, but for this low complexity, the key bases are covered.

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 50%: the optional sandbox parameter has a schema description, but the required app_id parameter has none. The tool description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever — it never explains what app_id should be or how sandbox modifies behavior. Since app_id is required and undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Đọc status, URL, lần deploy và app host. / Inspect app' — read status, URL, deploy count, and app host of an app. It also explicitly identifies itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_app_get, which differentiates it from siblings like vibecloud_app_list. The deployment timing note is contextual but slightly muddies the core purpose.

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 alias statement 'Alias tương thích của cloud_app_get / Compatibility alias' implies this tool is interchangeable with cloud_app_get, giving some guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus cloud_app_get, vibecloud_app_list, or vibecloud_app_logs. There are no exclusions or explicit when-to-use conditions.

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