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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the returned blocks are in the exact shape update_pipeline accepts, making the round-trip safe. It still omits error behavior for an unknown key and any permission requirements.

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, and the most important scoping fact ('active revision') is front-loaded. The second sentence adds the round-trip contract that an agent needs for the common follow-up action.

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 no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return (ordered blocks, default escalation path, update_pipeline-compatible shape). It stops short of describing failure modes or auth requirements, which is a modest gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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 the schema's own description of pipeline_key already explains the 'entry' semantics versus delegate targets, which the tool description does not repeat or extend. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a pipeline's active revision') plus exactly what is returned: ordered blocks and the default escalation path. The word 'active' implicitly separates it from get_pipeline_revision (a specific revision) and list_pipelines, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the workflow note that blocks can be edited and resubmitted via update_pipeline, which effectively tells the agent this is the read half of an edit loop. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_pipeline_revision, list_pipeline_revisions, or preview_pipeline, and offers no exclusions.

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