Find Flaky Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it inspects recent history and identifies oscillating jobs, but does not explain what 'recent' means or what the output looks like. 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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words. Could benefit from a bit more structure, but remains appropriate for a simple tool.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return format, parameter usage, and examples, leaving significant gaps for correct tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (project_id, ref, min_samples, lookback_pipelines). The agent has no guidance on how to set them beyond parameter names and defaults.

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 it inspects pipeline history to identify oscillating jobs, which is a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gitlab_flaky_ci_triage', so it loses a point for sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is implied, there are many pipeline-related siblings (e.g., gitlab_compare_pipeline_runs, gitlab_flaky_ci_triage) and no explicit when/when-not advice.

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