vibekit_run_qa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool takes a screenshot and tests key flows, which is specific behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., app must be deployed), or whether the operation is non-destructive, leaving gaps for a test run.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the results are presented. It does not mention whether the QA test yields a pass/fail, a report, or a status code, leaving a significant gap for an automated test 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'appId' with an 'App ID or subdomain slug' description. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so 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 the tool runs automated QA tests on a hosted app, with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('automated QA tests'). It further specifies what it does ('Takes a screenshot and tests key flows'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibekit_qa_status.

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 usage context by mentioning 'hosted app', suggesting it's used to verify app functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references.

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