vibecloud_app_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context — apps from git are live, first host takes roughly 2–3 minutes, subsequent deploys 10–20 seconds — which sets expectations about what the listing reflects. It does not explicitly confirm a read-only/non-destructive operation or explain how sandbox mode affects the listed scope, leaving a moderate gap.

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 but fully bilingual, repeating every point in Vietnamese and English and roughly doubling its length. The front-loaded alias identity is well placed, but the deployment-timing sentence is tangential for a list tool and could be dropped without loss.

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-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essentials: what it lists, when to use it, and its sibling relationship. It does not describe the return shape or the scope of the listing (all apps vs. sandbox-only), and the deployment-timing note reads as if it belongs to a deploy tool rather than a list tool.

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 100% — the sandbox parameter already carries its own explanation ('Sandbox, no charge'), so the rubric baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already declares.

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 — 'List apps' / 'Liệt kê app' — and anchors identity by declaring itself a 'Compatibility alias' of cloud_app_list, so an agent can recognize it as equivalent to that sibling. The tangentially included git-deploy timing info slightly muddies the listing purpose, preventing a 5.

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?

'Liệt kê app trước khi tạo để tránh trùng' gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this before creating an app to avoid duplicates. The alias declaration tells the agent it is interchangeable with cloud_app_list. It stops short of naming alternatives for other needs such as cloud_app_get or cloud_app_deploy, so exclusions are absent.

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