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, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds the filtering behavior and API method (GET), which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.

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 composed of two concise sentences in Chinese, front-loading the purpose and filters, then providing the API endpoint. No superfluous information, earning its place efficiently.

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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers input parameters and filtering capabilities adequately, though it omits details like pagination or default sorting. Overall, it is nearly complete for a list tool.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate. The description lists four filter parameters (project, environment, target, keyword) that map to schema fields. This adds value by summarizing available filters, although response_format is not mentioned. Schema descriptions for sub-parameters are present, so the description provides a helpful overview.

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 '列出 KubeVela 应用' (list KubeVela applications) and specifies filtering by project/environment/delivery target/keyword. It effectively communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vela_get_application, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 implies usage by mentioning filtering options but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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