vela_list_components

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dual behavior (list vs. detail) and the API path, but does not elaborate on formats, pagination, or error behavior. This is modest supplemental context beyond annotations, warranting a score of 3.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action (list components), and includes a succinct summary of the conditional detail mode and the API endpoint. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or excessive detail.

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 an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's dual purpose and provides a reference to the API. The slight gap is that it does not mention the 'env' parameter's list-only effect, but that is already in the schema. Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 high (75%+), and each parameter already has a description in the schema (e.g., 'component' notes it returns details including properties/traits). The tool description reinforces the component behavior but adds little beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 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 the tool's function: listing application components, and when a component is specified, returning its details (properties, traits, definition). It also gives the corresponding API endpoint, making the scope explicit and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_application or 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 clear context for when to use the tool: for listing components or retrieving a specific component's details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the conditional behavior ('指定 component 时') gives a usage pattern. No exclusion criteria are mentioned, so it fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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