get_latest_pipeline_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by detailing three distinct input options with specific requirements (e.g., 'EXACTLY ONE of these THREE options must be used'), constraints like 'ALL THREE parameters must be provided' for Option 3, and error-handling guidance ('ask the user for the missing information'). It lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs, but covers operational constraints well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use cases, input options, workflow, requirements), but it is verbose. Sentences like 'It can be used to check pipeline status, get latest build status, or view current pipeline state' are redundant with the opening statement. The 'Common use cases' list repeats similar ideas (e.g., 'Check latest pipeline status' and 'View pipeline state'), reducing efficiency. However, the structure aids readability.

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 complexity (multiple input options, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It thoroughly explains parameter usage, dependencies, and workflows. The main gap is the lack of information on return values (e.g., what status data is provided), which is significant since there's no output schema. Otherwise, it adequately covers the tool's operational context and constraints.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining the three input options in detail, specifying exact parameter combinations (e.g., 'Option 1 - Project Slug and branch (BOTH required)'), providing examples for each parameter, and clarifying interdependencies and usage rules. This transforms the schema from a simple list into actionable guidance.

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 the tool's purpose: 'retrieves the status of the latest pipeline for a CircleCI project.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('latest pipeline'), and scope ('CircleCI project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_pipeline' (executes) or 'get_build_failure_logs' (focuses on logs).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a 'Recommended Workflow' section directing users to first use 'listFollowedProjects' to obtain a projectSlug, and it lists 'Common use cases' like checking pipeline status or build progress. It also specifies when not to use it (e.g., 'Never call this tool with incomplete parameters').

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