evaluate_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the metrics measured and mentions 'Run evaluation', but it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any state, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two short sentences with clear structure, front-loading the purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and metrics but omits details like expected output format, performance implications, or assumptions about the pipeline. It is minimally complete for an agent, but lacks behavioral context.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'queries' parameter has a description). The description adds context by naming the metrics evaluated, suggesting how queries are used, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for 'report_format' (no description in schema or description). This is baseline adequate but not compensatory.

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 it runs RAGAS-style evaluation on the RAG pipeline and lists the specific metrics measured (answer relevance, faithfulness, context recall). This differentiates it well from sibling tools like get_build_status or search_docs.

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 implies the tool is for evaluating a RAG pipeline on test queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The sibling tools provide context, but no exclusions are given.

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