Get pipeline schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond those annotations by disclosing that schedule variable values are intentionally withheld from the response — a meaningful behavioral trait not captured in the structured fields.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the action ("Get one pipeline schedule") and appends one high-value behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present, return values are already documented, and the strong annotations cover safety semantics. The description covers purpose and the notable redaction behavior, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter read tool; it only misses explicit sibling positioning for bulk listing.

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 50%; the project parameter is well described in the schema, but pipeline_schedule_id has no schema description and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. The parameter name and integer type make pipeline_schedule_id reasonably inferable, so this is adequate but not compensated beyond the schema.

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?

"Get one pipeline schedule" uses a specific verb plus resource and explicitly scopes to a single item, distinguishing it from list_pipeline_schedules. The clause "without exposing schedule variable values" adds a distinguishing behavioral scope that further clarifies what this tool uniquely returns.

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 singular "one" implies this is for fetching a specific schedule by ID rather than listing schedules, and the variable-redaction note hints at when this is the safer choice. However, it never names alternatives like list_pipeline_schedules or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving guidance largely implicit.

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