Get Pipeline Config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes a non-destructive fetch operation (reads config, returns YAML) and implies no side effects. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Fetch' and the return description.

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 three sentences, each concise and impactful. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains the return format, and the third gives a usage tip. No fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (source and compiled YAML). It covers the main use case and provides a starting point for review. Minor gaps like error handling or edge cases are not critical for this fetch tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for branch, pipeline_id, and project_slug; it merely restates the schema's logic.

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 'Fetch the CircleCI config for a project's latest pipeline (or a specific pipeline)' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_dag or validate_config by positioning itself as the starting point for config review.

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 includes the directive 'Use this as the starting point for any config review,' providing clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention cases where siblings would be more appropriate.

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