environment_get_published_spark_compute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful context that this returns the currently effective published configuration rather than staging, but does not describe response structure, error behavior, or any operation-specific caveats. This is adequate but adds only modest behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and the key distinguishing qualifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only GET tool with two well-documented parameters and safe annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe the return payload structure, but the phrase 'Spark compute configuration' adequately communicates what the caller receives.

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 100%, so the workspaceId and environmentId parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already handles 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Spark compute configuration'), and an important scoping qualifier ('published (currently effective)'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from environment_get_staging_spark_compute and environment_get_definition without needing to open the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the published/effective Spark compute configuration is needed. It does not explicitly name the sibling staging alternative or state when not to use it, but the 'published (currently effective)' wording makes the primary use case unambiguous.

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