vela_list_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint and filter scope but reveals no further behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or result limits; this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and every phrase carries relevant information, including API mapping and filter capabilities.

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 read-only list operation with full annotations, an output schema, and self-describing parameters, the description is complete. It names the object, supported filters, and API endpoint, giving an agent everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter (env, query, target_name, project_name, response_format) already has a meaningful description. The tool description summarizes the filter categories but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('列出' = list) and resource ('KubeVela 应用'), and specifies supported filter dimensions and the corresponding API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vela_get_application (single-get) and vela_get_app_status (status).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a list of applications is needed, with optional filters by project, environment, target, or keyword. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the list-vs-get distinction is implicit and supported by sibling tool names.

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