vela_get_application_manifest

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the underlying compare API and the difference between latest and running states, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions found.

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: two sentences plus an API reference. It front-loads the purpose and use cases, then explains source options, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has a rich output schema, thorough annotations, and a description covering purpose, use cases, source semantics, and API mapping. Everything needed for correct invocation is present.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description reinforces the meaning of 'source' with concrete semantics (latest vs running). The API reference adds extra clarity, making parameter usage well understood.

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 exports the Application CR YAML manifest, using a specific verb ('导出') and resource ('Application CR YAML 清单'). It distinguishes from siblings like vela_get_application by targeting manifest export for GitOps/backup/audit use cases.

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 provides use cases (GitOps migration/backup/audit) and differentiates between source=latest and source=running. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to choose this tool.

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