vela_get_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 context about the specific data returned (basic info, policies, environment bindings, resource statistics), which complements the annotations well.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and API mapping. No wasted words.

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 annotations and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the categories of returned data, though it doesn't address error cases or additional behavior. Still, it satisfies the needs for a read-oriented 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?

The description does not mention parameters despite low schema description coverage (0% per context). The schema itself provides minimal descriptions (e.g., '应用名称' for app_name). The offered description adds no guidance on parameter usage or format.

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 views application details including basic info, policies, environment bindings, and resource statistics, and provides the corresponding API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vela_get_app_status (status only) and vela_list_applications (list view).

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 for retrieving full details of a single application but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like vela_get_app_status or vela_get_application_manifest. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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