vela_list_addons

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 valuable context by mapping to specific API endpoints and clarifying the three modes of operation (list vs. enabled vs. detail/status). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. However, it doesn't describe additional behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or potential large response sizes, so not a 5.

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, using two sentences to convey the full scope. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the relevant API endpoints as a bonus. No wordiness or redundancy.

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 list/detail tool with 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary modes and aligns with the parameters. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It could mention pagination or resource limits, but the core behavior is sufficiently described.

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 description coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema already explains for each parameter. The mention of '单个插件详情与状态' aligns with the addon_name parameter, but it doesn't provide new semantic insights or usage examples for query, registry, or enabled_only.

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's purpose: viewing addon marketplace lists, enabled plugins, and individual addon details/status. It uses specific verbs ('查看' = view/list) and distinguishes this resource (addons) from sibling tools that handle other resources like applications, components, and environments.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for any addon-related query, with three distinct modes (marketplace list, enabled list, single addon detail). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but among the sibling tools, none cover addons, so the use case is unambiguous. Missing explicit exclusions or 'when-not-to-use' guidance, hence not a 5.

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