vela_compare_application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the three comparison modes and the underlying API endpoint, which helps the agent understand the tool's side-effect-free nature and how the parameters influence 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear bulleted list of modes. Every sentence earns its place, and the API endpoint is provided as a reference. No fluff.

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 an output schema, so return format is covered there. The description fully explains the input combinations and the diagnostic purpose, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Sibling relationships are not needed since this is a distinct comparison 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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by synthesizing the parameter combinations (env-only, revision+running, revision+latest), clarifying the interplay between env, revision, and compare_with. This adds meaning beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 compares application configuration differences to diagnose configuration drift, with specific verb and resource. It also details three distinct comparison modes, distinguishing it from other tools in the sibling list that are primarily list/get/query operations.

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 explicitly explains when to use each of the three modes (only env, revision with compare_with=running, revision with compare_with=latest), providing concrete conditions. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the mode guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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