Configuration Errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the types of errors (broken configs, missing refs, syntax errors) and notes that tenant defaults from the environment. This provides meaningful behavioral insight without contradicting the 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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a one-line usage hint, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded.

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?

Given this is a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and parameter meanings. The output schema handles return values, so no further detail is needed. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has zero descriptions for its two parameters. The description compensates fully by explaining 'tenant: Tenant (default from env)' and 'project: Project filter (optional),' adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It clarifies the source of the default and the optional nature of the filter.

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 the tool's function: 'Get Zuul configuration errors — broken configs, missing refs, syntax errors.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples distinguish it from sibling tools. The phrase 'First tool to check when a job isn't being triggered' further clarifies its specific role.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'First tool to check when a job isn't being triggered.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is strong enough to guide selection among siblings like diagnose_build or get_build_failures.

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