pipeline_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full weight. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention any prerequisites, or address rate limits. More behavioral context is needed.

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 with no wasted words. It could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness, but it is appropriately short for a straightforward getter.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, it omits specifics like possible pipeline states (e.g., running, failed) and what 'recent stage history' means. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but could be more informative given the many sibling tools.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (the parameter 'task_id' is already described as 'Task ID with a pipeline'). Baseline score of 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 explicitly states 'Get current pipeline state and recent stage history for a task,' using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipeline_advance and pipeline_create, though it could further differentiate from task_status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context (e.g., 'Use when you need read-only pipeline state; for updates use pipeline_advance') is missing.

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