vibekit_agent_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical '(idle, running, etc.)' gives some insight into the possible return values. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or what 'etc.' might include, leaving some ambiguity.

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 single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get'), and includes relevant example values. There is zero wasted text; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one clearly documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose and hints at return values. It is nearly complete for a simple status check, though it could explicitly list all possible statuses or mention that the status is for the agent specifically (as opposed to app status).

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 input schema has 100% coverage with appId described as 'App ID or subdomain slug'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only refers to 'an app's AI agent'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states the tool gets the current status of an app's AI agent, with specific verb (Get), resource (current status), and examples (idle, running, etc.). It is unambiguous and naturally distinguished from sibling tools like vibekit_agent_stop or vibekit_agent_history.

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?

Usage is implied through the description: it is a read-only status checker. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., when to check status vs. stop/restart), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools suggests it is the go-to status check, but this is not stated.

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