vibekit_database_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but it does not mention what the output contains, whether sensitive connection info (like credentials) is returned, whether it requires specific permissions, or whether it might be slow. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic read intent.

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 that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant detail. Every word contributes to the stated purpose.

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?

The tool has a simple input schema but no output schema and no annotations. The description is too minimal to give the agent full confidence: it does not explain what the returned status/connection info looks like, nor does it clarify how this differs from related database tools. For a tool with no other structured context, the description should have been more detailed.

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 full coverage for the single parameter 'appId' with a description ('App ID or subdomain slug'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: it gets database status and connection info for an app. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('database status and connection info'), making its basic purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like vibekit_database_schema or vibekit_database_query, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., database must be enabled) or contrast with related database tools (schema, query) or app-level tools (get_app). There is no context about typical use cases, so an agent receives no decision support.

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