diagnose_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that partial results are returned when a check fails and that no repair is attempted. These are behavioral traits not captured by the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core diagnostic purpose front-loaded and the failure/read-only caveats following. No filler; every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are not required, and the description covers the key edge case (partial results on failure) plus the non-mutating guarantee. The main remaining gap is that neither parameter is described.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. It never explains what 'name' identifies (pipeline name) or what 'limit' bounds (e.g., error/batch rows), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (diagnose) and resource (pipeline) and clarifies it aggregates status, recent errors, and CDC batches into heuristic troubleshooting. This distinguishes it in substance from the sibling single-fetch tools (get_pipeline_status, get_pipeline_errors, get_pipeline_batches), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'Never repairs or changes a pipeline' signals the read-only diagnostic role and implicitly points write actions to update/resume/pause siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this aggregate tool versus the granular get_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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