vela_get_app_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail of two retrieval modes (all environments vs specific environment), which is useful but not critical. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, with only two lines of Chinese and API endpoints. It front-loads the purpose and mode information. Every element is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers both use cases (overview and detail) and is complete for a read-only status tool with rich annotations. Minor gap: no mention of what the status includes, but output schema likely handles that.

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?

Even though context indicates 0% schema description coverage, the actual schema provides descriptions for env and app_name parameters. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. Hence baseline score 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 it retrieves application running status, with explicit mention of two modes: overview of all environments or details for a specific environment. The API endpoints reinforce this. It is distinct from sibling tools like vela_list_applications (list apps) and vela_get_application (get app details).

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 by providing two API endpoints (with and without env parameter), indicating when to use overview vs detail mode. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative tools. The context is clear for a status-check tool.

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