Project Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by stating the tool retrieves 'project configuration — which pipelines and jobs are configured', disclosing the content of the return beyond the output schema. Combined with annotations, this gives adequate behavioral transparency.

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: a single introductory sentence front-loading the purpose, followed by a brief Args section. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required), existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, key parameters, and what the response contains (pipelines and jobs), leaving no critical gaps.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter with an example and the 'tenant' parameter with its default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'project configuration', specifying that it returns which pipelines and jobs are configured. This distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (which lists all projects) and 'get_job' (specific job details).

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 a clear context by specifying it gets configuration for a project, with arguments for project name (with example) and tenant (with default). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous for the intended use case.

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