Get Pipeline Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information annotations cannot: that variable values are gated behind a server-side env var plus a request flag, which is exactly the kind of privileged-access context an agent needs before assuming values are present.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second carries the only non-obvious precondition. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description adequately signals the shape of the response (schedule plus last pipeline, inputs, variable metadata). It remains incomplete on scoping: nothing says whether project_id is required or how the tool behaves when the variable-values flag is absent (silent redaction vs. error).

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. include_variable_values is explained well (its interaction with GITLAB_ALLOW_CI_VARIABLE_VALUES), but project_id is never mentioned and pipeline_schedule_id is only implied by the name, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get one pipeline schedule') and enumerates the returned facets (last pipeline, inputs, variable metadata), which separates it from a list operation. It stops short of naming a sibling such as gitlab_list_pipeline_schedules, so the differentiation is implied by 'one' rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the list/update/play siblings. The only conditional guidance is for the value-return path ('requires GITLAB_ALLOW_CI_VARIABLE_VALUES=true and include_variable_values=true'), which is genuinely useful but narrow.

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