Get pipeline configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing the historical snapshot nature of the returned YAML and the distinction from the live branch config, which is useful beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary behavior is stated first, and the clarifying contrast with the current branch follows immediately. 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The parameter schemas are fully documented, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description supplies the essential historical-config context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters already have detailed descriptions: 'number' is clarified as the per-repository counter rather than the global pipeline id, and 'repo_id' explains how to obtain it. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('pipeline YAML files this run was built from'), and adds the key historical qualifier 'as they were at that commit.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from any current-branch config getter and from sibling tools like get_pipeline or get_pipeline_metadata.

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: this tool returns the config that actually ran for a pipeline run, not the current branch config. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state a direct 'when-not-to-use' rule beyond the branch distinction.

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