get_lifecycle

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what configuration aspects are returned: statuses, transitions, defaults, and usage by queues/catalogs. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's output scope without needing an 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?

The description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the relevant return contents. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately captures the return contents. It could mention error behavior (e.g., lifecycle not found) or response format, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the identifying `name` parameter.

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%: the only parameter `name` is documented as 'Lifecycle name'. The description does not add additional semantics (e.g., exact name format, case sensitivity, or whether partial names match), but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a lifecycle's full configuration') and enumerates the key information returned: statuses, allowed transitions, default statuses, and queue/catalog usage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_lifecycles or update_lifecycle.

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 implies a read-only retrieval of a single lifecycle's full configuration, with a required `name` parameter signaling that a specific lifecycle must already be known. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_lifecycles or how it relates to lifecycle validation/update tools.

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