vela_velaql_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: '错误以结构化文本返回, LLM 可直接 parse 修复后重试' and that the server assembles the velaql string, which informs error recovery and invocation expectations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences with a clear lead action, API endpoint, usage pattern, and error-handling note. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a view enum and nested params, the description plus rich schema/annotations covers the essential context: what it does, how it works, and error recovery. It doesn't enumerate all views, but the schema does, so the description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 tool description itself only points to 'ParamSchema' descriptions and does not explain parameters, but the input schema provides detailed per-view key mappings (75% coverage). The schema carries the semantic burden, so the description adds little beyond the pointer, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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 opens with '执行 VelaQL 查询' and lists concrete runtime data examples (Pod list, container logs, resource topology), clearly defining the tool's function. It also cites the exact API endpoint (GET /api/v1/query?velaql=), which helps distinguish it from sibling resource-listing tools.

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 explains the query mechanism (view enum + structured params, server-assembled VelaQL) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling list/get tools, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit, so guidance is present but not fully fleshed out.

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