vibekit_get_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Get details') and discloses the return fields (status, URL, plan, usage). It does not mention error cases or authentication, but for a simple GET-style tool the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned information by listing key fields. It could mention read-only behavior explicitly, but the name and verb strongly imply it, leaving no significant gaps.

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 already describes appId as 'App ID or subdomain slug' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond referencing 'a specific hosted app'. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are provided, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get details' and names the resource ('a specific hosted app'), enumerating concrete output fields such as status, URL, plan, and usage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibekit_list_apps.

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 phrase 'specific hosted app' establishes clear context for when to use this tool (single-app lookups) rather than listing all apps. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, so it lacks full guidance.

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