get_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what is returned ('complete pipeline JSON definition including all stage configurations'), though it says nothing about auth requirements or behavior for a nonexistent pipeline.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then return shape. No filler, though the third sentence partly overlaps with the first's 'full configuration'.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully covers the return shape (pipeline JSON with stage configs). Combined with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge-case behavior (missing pipeline, permissions) is unaddressed.

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 100% with both parameters documented ('as registered in Spinnaker', 'as shown in the Spinnaker UI'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the lookup keys and adds no format or disambiguation detail, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full configuration of a specific pipeline') and pins the lookup keys to application and pipeline name. It distinguishes itself from list_pipelines by scope ('a specific pipeline'), but never names the sibling it differs from, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear use context: 'inspect pipeline stages, triggers, and parameters before triggering or modifying it.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. get_pipeline_history, list_pipelines).

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