vela_list_definitions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context by noting that specifying definition_name returns the parameter schema and by providing the exact API endpoint, which goes beyond the basic safety profile.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with the API reference. Every word earns its place with no 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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, how to get details, and the underlying API. No critical information is missing.

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%), so the baseline is 3. The description enhances param understanding by explaining that definition_name triggers schema return and by mapping the definition types to Chinese labels, adding meaningful semantic context.

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: viewing component/trait/policy/workflow step definitions, with the added behavior of returning a parameter schema when a definition name is specified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on applications, components, or projects.

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 for listing definitions and retrieving schemas via the API mapping, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the usage context is only implied.

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