Get Resolved Headers

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the resolution cascade (organization, project, spec policies, local overrides, exclusions) and that each header includes its source. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a precise mental model of what the tool computes.

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, tightly packed with essential information: what it returns, how it differs from a sibling, and a prerequisite. No filler or repetition. The most critical scope detail is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the result includes (headers with origin). It also handles the main disambiguation with get_header_policies and notes the project context requirement. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters themselves; it focuses on the output semantics. Baseline 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 specifies a clear action ('Get the headers that actually apply to one endpoint response'), the exact scope (one response after full cascade), and details what is returned (with origin). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_header_policies, which covers a whole endpoint grouped by status code, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 explicitly names the alternative (get_header_policies) and the difference in scope (one response vs. whole endpoint), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires project context'), which is useful operational guidance.

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