run_discovery_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'run' without details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'discovery and ingestion' entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant operations, leaving the agent unaware of critical behaviors.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving discovery and ingestion pipelines), no annotations, low schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, its behavior, or parameter meanings, failing to provide adequate context for an agent.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has one parameter ('input') with nested properties (dry_run, min_score, max_new_repos) and 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, not compensating for the low coverage, which leaves parameters poorly understood.

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 'Run the discovery and ingestion pipeline' restates the tool name 'run_discovery_pipeline' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'discovery and ingestion pipeline', but lacks detail on what this pipeline actually does or how it differs from sibling tools like 'discover_repos' or 'ingest_repo', leaving the purpose vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'discover_repos' and 'ingest_repo' that seem related, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it misleading for an agent to choose appropriately without additional information.

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