vela_get_app_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance by distinguishing between all-environment overview and per-environment detail, and includes the concrete API endpoints that shape expected behavior. It does not go into pagination or error modes, but the extra context is valuable beyond 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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second lists the API endpoints. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only status tool. It clearly defines the two operational modes and maps to APIs. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple status read. The tool is well-specified overall.

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 67% (app_name and env have descriptions; response_format only has an enum reference). The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema descriptions are adequate. The description's mention of '不填返回所有环境的状态概览' aligns with the schema's env description, but does not enhance it.

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 uses a specific verb '查看' (view) and resource '应用运行状态' (application running status), and further clarifies scope with '全部环境概览或指定环境详情' (all environments overview or specific environment details). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like vela_list_applications and vela_system_info.

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 describing the two modes (overview vs specific env) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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