get_pipeline_pod_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that secrets are redacted, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the basic 'get' semantics. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get', and the redaction note adds valuable safety context.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the redaction note is a distinct, important behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned, for which pod, and the redaction behavior. It could add a hint that pod_name comes from list_pipeline_pods, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation in most contexts.

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. 'by pod_name' clarifies that pod_name is the selector for the config lookup, but it adds little detail about the expected format, provenance, or behavior when the pod does not exist. The single parameter is simple, but the description only minimally supplements the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('full YAML config'), and selection scope ('for one pod by pod_name'). The word 'config' clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_pipeline_pod, and the scope prevents confusion with job-level config tools.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when you need the full YAML configuration for a single pod, identified by pod_name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource and scope are specific enough to guide selection among siblings.

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