vela_system_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds what specific information is returned (version, login, stats, plugins), providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose with content, use case, and API endpoint. No fluff, each sentence 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?

For a simple read-only tool with output schema and one optional parameter, description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. Could add parameter details for completeness.

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%. The only parameter (response_format) is not explained in description; its meaning must be inferred from enum values. Description should mention the optional format choice.

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?

Description clearly states verb and resource: '查看 VelaUX 平台系统信息' (view system info). Lists specific data included (KubeVela version, login method, statistics, plugins). Distinguishes from siblings which focus on applications, components, etc.

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?

Explicit use case: '适合作为接入新环境后的连通性与版本自检' (suitable as connectivity and version self-check after connecting to new environment). No alternatives mentioned, but tool is unique among siblings.

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