vibekit_qa_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a non-mutating operation via the verb 'get', but does not disclose potential error conditions, staleness of results, or authentication requirements. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It communicates the essential action and target resource efficiently.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter structure, the description is adequate for basic usage, but it lacks contextual details about how results relate to the QA lifecycle (e.g., running tests via vibekit_run_qa) and what the response contains. No output schema exists, so some return-value guidance would improve completeness.

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 fully documents the single parameter (appId) with a description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the schema's 100% coverage establishes the baseline.

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 retrieves the latest QA test results for a given app, using the specific verb 'get' and a distinct resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like vibekit_run_qa (which executes tests) and other app management 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 implies this is a read-only status check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as vibekit_run_qa or how it relates to other status tools (e.g., vibekit_agent_status). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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