get_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured context by explaining what the payload uniquely contains (epoch counts absent from experiment results) and where the ID must come from. It stops short of describing the full returned shape, which leaves a small gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the distinguishing capability (epoch counts) is front-loaded before the lookup instructions. Every clause carries either differentiation or an actionable instruction.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what makes the returned data special and how to obtain the ID. A brief note on other returned fields (pipeline steps, dataset binding) would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents config_id, including the 0-means-defaults case, so the baseline applies. The description still earns credit by giving the parameter provenance — the value comes from list_experiments — which is a usage fact the schema does not state.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a single saved pipeline configuration by ID') and immediately scopes it with what makes it distinct: the batch-level and sample-level epoch counts that experiment results do not carry. That clause separates it from get_experiment_results, list_configurations, and get_default_configuration without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'take configuration_id from list_experiments and look it up here,' and establishes the precedence rule that this is the source of truth for real hyperparameters rather than experiment results. It does not mention get_default_configuration as the alternative for built-in defaults, but the schema's config_id=0 note covers that gap.

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