interchange_get_pipeline_properties

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the reflection mechanism and the return shape, but does not discuss error cases (e.g., invalid path) or any side effects. It provides useful return-format context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return shape. Every clause earns its place, especially because no output schema exists.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description supplies the return shape and the class_only distinction, which the agent otherwise could not get from the missing output schema. Error behavior for an invalid pipeline_path is not covered, though the schema notes the required UInterchangePipelineBase constraint.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in detail, including the class_only default and pipeline_path type expectation. The description's 'class_only lists only their names and types' is a less detailed restatement and adds no semantics beyond the 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 ('Read') and resource ('Interchange pipeline asset') and clarifies the reflection mechanism, so the agent knows it inspects rather than mutates. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling set_pipeline_properties, but the read verb still differentiates it.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance is given. The class_only clause hints at discovery usage, but that is a parameter behavior rather than a routing instruction, and related siblings like set_pipeline_properties or interchange_get_pipelines are never mentioned.

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