vbstudio_job_params

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the return format (YAML) but nothing on permissions, repo resolution behavior, or failure modes for unparameterized jobs.

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 action and resource, then attaches the purpose. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (YAML) and why. The only gap is the undocumented jobName parameter and unstated behavior for non-parameterized jobs.

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 50%: repo is fully documented in the schema while jobName has no description anywhere. The phrase 'a ... VB Studio CI job's parameter definitions' only loosely implies jobName is the job identifier, so the description barely compensates for the uncovered parameter.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (a VB Studio CI job's parameter definitions in YAML). It even names the sibling it feeds into (vbstudio_trigger_build), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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 clause 'to build the paramsYaml for vbstudio_trigger_build' makes the intended context and downstream consumer explicit, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or what happens for non-parameterized jobs, so it falls just below the top tier.

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