vela_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the exact API endpoint (GET /api/v1/system_info) and a clear description of the returned data categories, reinforcing the read-only behavior without contradiction.

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 concise lines: resource and content, recommended use case, and API endpoint. No filler, no redundant restatement of the name, and important information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity, robust annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It states the resource, the exact API, the kind of information returned, and a practical usage scenario. No critical behavioral or prerequisite details are missing for a read-only system info 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?

The single optional parameter response_format is fully described by the input schema with an enum of markdown/json and a default of markdown. The description does not mention it, but since the schema provides complete semantics, no additional compensation is required. The schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb '查看' (view) and a clear resource 'VelaUX 平台系统信息', enumerating contents like KubeVela version, login method, cluster/app stats, and enabled plugins. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools that target individual entities.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: '适合作为接入新环境后的连通性与版本自检' (suitable as a connectivity/version self-check after onboarding a new environment). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to identify when this tool is appropriate.

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