Job Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of returned configuration fields but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, error cases). 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 description is extremely concise: one front-loaded sentence for purpose and a compact two-item Args list. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a simple read-only configuration retrieval with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope. Minor vagueness in 'all variants' does not detract significantly.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description's Args section clarifies 'name' as 'Job name' and 'tenant' as 'Tenant (default from env)', adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'job configuration' with concrete fields (parent, nodeset, timeout, branches). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs (list) and get_build (build-specific resource).

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 implies usage when one needs job configuration details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_jobs or get_build. No exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned.

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