Explain Failed Pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds unique behavioral context (job output treated as untrusted) that helps agents understand the trustworthiness of returned content.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and concise. It could include more detail on parameters or output without losing conciseness, but it is not overly verbose.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain default values (max_jobs=3, trace_tail_lines=40, output_format='structured'), enum options, or the return format. The note about untrusted output is useful but insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It only hints at 'max_jobs' and 'trace_tail_lines' implicitly through 'listing failed jobs and tailing their traces', but does not explain parameters like project_id, pipeline_id, output_format, or their constraints.

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 summarizes a failed pipeline by listing failed jobs and tailing their traces, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_pipeline or gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary by adding the trace tailing component.

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 failed pipelines but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria provided.

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