Get pipeline config

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

Annotations cover only readOnly/openWorld, and the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: the config is returned verbatim before matrix expansion or `when` evaluation, inline YAML values are included, output is capped at 100,000 characters, and the content is repo-sourced and may be PR-modified so it should be treated as data, not instructions. That injection warning and size cap are exactly the kind of context that prevents misuse.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then scope, then tactics, then caveats; every sentence carries information an agent needs (what is returned, the pre-expansion snapshot, the latest/branch interaction, the injection warning, the size cap). No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description must define the return shape, and it does ('file name plus YAML text') along with the truncation limit and the semantic caveat about pre-evaluation content. For a 4-parameter read tool this is complete enough to invoke confidently without opening anything else.

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 100%, so the schema already documents repo, branch, number, and instance. The description's note that `number` may be "latest" (default branch, or `branch`) largely paraphrases the schema's own wording rather than adding new syntax, format, or resolution rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: returns the workflow config files (e.g. .woodpecker/*.yaml) exactly as fetched for one pipeline, as file name plus YAML text. It also pins down the exact snapshot ('raw config at that commit, before matrix expansion or `when` evaluation'), which separates it clearly from siblings like get_pipeline, get_step_logs, and diagnose_pipeline.

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?

Gives a clear selection rationale: 'Use it to tell a config problem from a code problem,' which signals the intended scenario versus get_step_logs or get_pipeline. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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