Get Pipeline Failed Jobs Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it includes trace tails, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential constraints like the max_jobs limit or that trace tails are truncated.

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 13-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core verb and object. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, especially for parameter semantics.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, detailed behavior like trace tails), the description is too brief. It does not cover parameter control, return format, or edge cases, leaving the agent underinformed for invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain parameters. The description only mentions 'stages, failure reasons, and short trace tails' but fails to elaborate on parameters like max_jobs, trace_tail_lines, or include_trace_tail. Despite self-explanatory names, the description does not add meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: summarizing failed jobs in a pipeline, including stages, failure reasons, and trace tails. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_pipeline or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs.

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 use when a summary of failed jobs is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like gitlab_explain_failed_pipeline or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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