pipeline_detail

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

The '[READ]' prefix indicates a non-destructive operation, which is helpful. However, no annotations are provided, and the description lacks details about what 'full detail' includes (e.g., fields, pagination). Behavior is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a two-line summary followed by a bullet-point parameter list. No redundant sentences. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It lacks details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but this is acceptable given the simplicity.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations: 'project' is id or full path, 'pipeline' is id from list_pipelines, 'target' is optional server name. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states '[READ] One pipeline/run's full detail,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' (list all) and 'pipeline_failure_rca' (root cause analysis).

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 explains the parameters, noting that 'pipeline' comes from 'list_pipelines', which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pipeline_failure_rca'.

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