vela_list_deploy_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering most safety behavior. The description adds the specific API endpoint and environment scoping, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, or how the response is structured beyond the schema. Meets baseline but adds limited value.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one for the purpose and one for the corresponding API. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant text, and every word adds value.

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?

The description provides the core function and API mapping, which is helpful. However, with 5 parameters and pagination, it could mention that results are paginated or that page_size applies. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described, but the description still feels minimal for a complete context.

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 only 40% (only app_name and env have descriptions). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, especially page, page_size, and response_format, which are left without descriptions in the schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents unclear about pagination and output format semantics.

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 purpose: '查看应用在指定环境的部署记录' (view deployment records of an application in a specific environment), with an explicit API mapping. It is specific about verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like vela_list_workflow_records.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply describes the function and API, offering no context for selection, exclusions, or references to other tools that might be more appropriate.

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