vela_list_addons

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it corresponds to GET APIs, reinforcing the read-only nature but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits. With good annotation coverage, the description contributes marginally.

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 extremely concise with two lines, front-loading the core function. Every sentence is meaningful and earns its place. 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 the availability of annotations and input schema descriptions, the description is partially complete. It mentions multiple modes (market, enabled, details) but does not explain how parameters affect behavior. The output schema is assumed present but not referenced. More context on usage scenarios would improve completeness.

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 0% because the tool description does not mention any parameters. While the input schema has descriptions for each parameter, the description does not add any value beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 is for viewing addon market list, enabled addons, and single addon details/status. It specifies the corresponding API endpoints, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like vela_list_applications.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it implies usage for addon-related queries, it lacks when-not-to-use advice or mention of alternative tools for similar resources.

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