get_pipeline_job_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful trait ('Secrets are redacted') and the verb 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but it does not cover error conditions, existence guarantees, or any side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, names the three identifiers, and adds the important redaction caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource, selection keys, return format (YAML), and the redaction behavior. The only notable gap is explicit alternative-tool guidance, which is already handled in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters and indicates they identify a single job, but it does not elaborate on their formats, semantics, or relationships beyond what the parameter names imply.

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 states a specific action ('Get'), a precise resource ('full YAML config for one job'), and the identifying parameters. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_pipeline_job and get_pipeline_pod_config.

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 when to use the tool: when the full YAML config for a specific job replica is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools such as get_pipeline_job or get_pipeline_pod_config.

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