get_pipeline_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior and the default '20 most recent errors' scope, but that largely restates the schema defaults (limit=20, level=error) rather than disclosing new traits such as ordering or truncation behavior.

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 compact clause, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with zero filler. Nothing is over-explained.

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 values need no prose, but the tool has a required, undocumented `name` parameter and heavy sibling overlap. The description does too little to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It hints at pagination and the error default, but the required `name` parameter is never explained—ambiguous given siblings like list_peers and get_peer_slots that also take names.

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 (paginated pipeline logs/errors), so the agent knows this retrieves log entries rather than status or batches. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like diagnose_pipeline or get_pipeline_status, which also touch pipeline failures.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With 12 siblings including diagnose_pipeline, an agent has no signal about when to pull raw error logs versus running a diagnosis.

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