Resolved Job Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the result is fully resolved after inheritance and warns that include_vars 'can be large', which is a useful operational caution beyond the schema. No contradictions with 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 tight and well-organized: three meaningful sentences in the intro followed by a structured Args block. Every line adds value, with no redundant or vague text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description fully explains what the tool does and its key parameters. The include_vars warning addresses a meaningful edge case. Together with the structured Args, the tool is adequately specified for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It does this excellently: pipeline includes examples ('check', 'gate'), branch has a default, tenant default is from env, and include_vars is explained with a size warning. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb-object pair ('Get fully-resolved job configuration') and adds specificity with 'after inheritance'. It further explains the output ('final merged nodeset, timeout, and playbooks'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job and get_freeze_jobs. The phrase 'Use to understand exactly what a job will do' reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use to understand exactly what a job will do.' It implies this tool is for seeing the fully merged configuration, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'after inheritance' context hints at the distinction but lacks an explicit exclusion.

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