Resolved Job Graph

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

The description adds context about showing resolved jobs with dependencies, but the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. No contradiction; the description complements annotations adequately.

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 concise: two short paragraphs with a clear first sentence and an 'Args' block. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized with front-loaded purpose.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain returns. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage context completely for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides an 'Args' section with explanations for each parameter (e.g., pipeline, project, branch default, tenant default). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults.

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 it 'gets the resolved job graph' and explains what it includes (all inheritance resolved, dependencies). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_freeze_job (singular) and other list tools.

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 says to use it to 'understand job ordering and why a job is (or isn't) in a pipeline', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is well enough defined.

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