vela_get_application

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the categories of returned information, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or the effect of response_format. This moderate additional context, combined with strong annotations, justifies a 3.

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 lines: a single sentence summarizing the purpose and the API endpoint. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no irrelevant information, achieving perfect efficiency.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, the detail categories, and the underlying API. It lacks explicit usage guidance and sibling differentiation, but given the annotations and output schema richness, it is sufficient for most cases. A perfect score would require more explicit context.

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 schema provides minimal descriptions: app_name is just '应用名称' (application name) and response_format has an enum but no description. The description adds the URL template '/api/v1/applications/{appName}', clarifying that app_name maps to the path parameter. However, response_format is not explained, so with only 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 and enumerates the included categories (basic info, policies, environment bindings, resource statistics). It also provides the API endpoint, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like vela_get_app_status or vela_get_application_manifest, though the level of detail implies it is the full-detail 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use this for full details, use get_app_status for status only'. The description simply states what the tool does without any when/when-not criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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