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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output includes URL and deploy status, but does not reveal ordering, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys scope, parenthetical clarifiation, and output fields without any waste. The key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the returned information (URL, deploy status) and the per-server scope. Missing details like response format or edge cases are minor for this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for vps_id, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description connects the field to the server context ('trên một máy chủ'), but adds no detail beyond that.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Liệt kê') and resource ('các app đang chạy trên một máy chủ'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vps (which lists servers) and list_plans. Also specifies key output elements (URL, deployment 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 the usage context: provide a vps_id to list apps on that machine, with 'nhiều app/máy' indicating one server can host multiple apps. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as list_vps.

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