get_pipeline_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content domains returned (state, config, snapshot progress, totals), but since an output schema exists the return list is partly redundant. It discloses no behavioral traits beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource, and returned content areas with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple read getter.

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 read-only status getter with rich annotations and an output schema covering return values, the description is largely complete. The one real gap is guidance on the required 'name' argument and how this tool relates to its overlapping siblings.

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 single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format (e.g., pipeline name vs. ID). The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap on a required field.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pipeline state') and enumerates what it surfaces: configuration, snapshot progress, replication totals. Clear on its own, but it doesn't distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_pipeline_errors, get_pipeline_batches, or diagnose_pipeline.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With several siblings returning pipeline-adjacent data (get_pipeline_errors, get_pipeline_batches, diagnose_pipeline), the absence of any routing advice forces the agent to guess which tool answers its question.

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