Get latest pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the fact that it returns the latest pipeline, but it does not describe return format or potential edge cases (e.g., no pipeline found). With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from noting that it returns the most recent pipeline for a ref, but the name and description together are sufficient. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description does not need to explain them.

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 50%: the 'project' parameter has a description, but 'ref' does not. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema covers half the parameters, the description could have compensated for the missing 'ref' description, but it does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the latest pipeline for a project ref, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipelines or get_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly mention the scope (e.g., only the most recent pipeline) beyond the name, but the description is sufficient.

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 usage for fetching the latest pipeline for a given project and ref, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipelines or get_pipeline. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval.

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