Project Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context that 'configuration' refers to pipelines and jobs, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling or requirements. 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief parameter list. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with a clear read-only purpose, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and parameter hints, though it could differentiate from similarly named sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters and enriches the name parameter with an example and clarifies the tenant default as 'from env', though it could provide more detail on parameter semantics.

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 retrieves project configuration, specifying that it covers configured pipelines and jobs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job or list_projects by focusing on the project-level configuration.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies usage via the purpose statement but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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