pipeline_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix simply echoes this. The description adds a minor behavioral note ('omit [target] for the default') but says nothing about return volume, contents, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; every line carries information without redundancy.

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 and minimal annotations, the description is adequate for a read-detail tool, covering all params and id sourcing. It stops short of describing what 'full detail' contains, which would help an agent decide between this and pipeline_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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does so well for all three params: project as id or full path, pipeline id sourced from list_pipelines, and target with an explicit omit-for-default instruction. It compensates meaningfully for the empty schema descriptions.

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 (read) and resource ('one pipeline/run's full detail'), distinguishing it from the sibling list_pipelines. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other pipeline-scoped reads like pipeline_jobs or job_trace_tail.

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 hint '(from list_pipelines)' implies the workflow for sourcing the pipeline id. Beyond that, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as pipeline_jobs or job_trace_tail for deeper drill-down.

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