vela_compare_application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the modes and API endpoint without contradicting annotations. It confirms the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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, using bullet points for the three modes. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, modes, and API endpoint. With an output schema present (not shown but indicated), it does not need to detail return values. Minor gap: lack of explicit mention of when to prefer each mode over siblings.

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 description explains the interplay of parameters (env, revision, compare_with) through three modes, adding value beyond the parameter-level descriptions in the schema. The schema covers individual descriptions, but the tool description provides usage logic.

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's purpose: compare application configuration differences (diagnose configuration drift). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vela_get_application or vela_get_app_status by focusing on diff comparison.

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 outlines three usage modes based on parameter combinations (env only, revision+compare_with=running, revision+compare_with=latest). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use cues but the modes provide clear context.

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