vela_velaql_query

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, open-ended, and idempotent. The description adds context about queryable data types (pods, logs, topology) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response size. It does not contradict 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 long, front-loads the main purpose, and includes essential details (API endpoint, common views) without any redundant information. Every 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?

With one required parameter well-documented in both schema and description, and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to form correct queries. It could mention what fields the output object contains, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 input schema describes the 'velaql' parameter with an example query, and the description supplements this with common views and usage patterns. Although schema coverage is listed as 0%, the description adds value by providing concrete examples, compensating for the minimal schema description.

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 that the tool executes VelaQL queries for runtime data like pod lists and container logs. It mentions common views and API endpoint, which helps distinguish from sibling tools focused on CRUD operations or other queries. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from other query 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 provides examples of common queries and views, implying when to use the tool, but does not give explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No scenarios or exclusions are mentioned.

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