vela_get_application_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it exports YAML and mentions the underlying API. It does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, permissions, or what the manifest looks like.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the two source modes, and the third gives technical context (compare interface and API endpoint). No wasted words and well structured.

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 annotations exist (readOnly, idempotent) and an output schema is present, the description covers the essential functionality and source modes. It does not mention prerequisites (though those are in the schema) or output details (handled by output schema). Slightly incomplete for a 100% score.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (env, source, app_name). The tool description only repeats the explanation for the source parameter. Schema description coverage is effectively 100% via the schema, so description adds no new value. Baseline 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 exports the Application CR YAML manifest for specific use cases (GitOps migration, backup, audit). It differentiates between source=latest and source=running, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like vela_get_application or vela_compare_application.

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 explains when to use each source option (latest vs running) and the general purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for similar tasks, which would improve guidance.

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