Resolved Job Graph

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about inheritance resolution and dependency display, giving insight into the computational behavior. No contradiction 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 main description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block adds necessary parameter context, but partially duplicates schema information, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the tool's function, usage, and parameters. It doesn't discuss error cases or edge scenarios, but that is not critical given the available schema.

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 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., pipeline examples, branch default, tenant default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states that the tool gets the resolved job graph for a pipeline/project/branch, showing which jobs will run with inheritance and dependencies resolved. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_freeze_job (singular) and get_job.

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 gives a clear use case with 'Use to understand job ordering,' which implies when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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