vibecloud_app_host_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates read-only behavior through 'Đọc app host' and 'List app hosts', and it adds useful operational context about expected timing: first app host takes ~2–3 minutes and later deploys 10–20 seconds. This is reasonably transparent for a simple list operation, though it does not cover failure modes or return-format details.

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 compact and includes useful details, but the structure is somewhat cluttered by the bilingual repetition and the fact that the main purpose, 'List app hosts', appears at the end rather than the front. It is not overly long, but it could be better organized and less repetitive.

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 one-parameter alias tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its relationship to cloud_app_host_list, timing expectations, and a prerequisite action when no host exists. It does not describe return values, but the name and 'List app hosts' make the expected outcome reasonably clear for an agent.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter, sandbox, including that it costs nothing and creates no real infrastructure. The tool description does not add much meaning about the parameter beyond referring to sandbox usage as part of the prerequisite workflow, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool 'List app hosts' and identifies itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_app_host_list, so the core function is clear. It does not deeply explain what an 'app host' is, but the verb+resource pair and the explicit alias reference are sufficient to distinguish it from the many other app and cloud 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 explicitly names cloud_app_host_list as the canonical equivalent, which tells an agent this tool can be used interchangeably with that sibling. It also gives conditional guidance: if no host exists yet, use sandbox cloud_app_create first to estimate. It could be stronger by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the alias and prerequisite guidance are clear.

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