get_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the key behavioral traits (safe, non-destructive, repeatable, no side effects). The description adds that it retrieves 'full configuration', which is useful but does not elaborate on what the configuration contains or performance implications. With comprehensive annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides moderate added value.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary; no fluff. It is concise and structured optimally for quick consumption by an AI agent.

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 params, read-only, idempotent) and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. No output schema exists, but the 'full configuration' phrase hints at the return format. Minor gap: it does not clarify what 'full configuration' excludes (e.g., execution history) but this is reasonable given tool complexity. Score 4 indicates high completeness for a simple read operation.

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 100% coverage (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by name' reinforcing the pipeline_name parameter but adds no further meaning beyond the schema. No additional details about application or pipeline_name format are provided. Score reflects that description adds minimal value over 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full configuration of a specific pipeline'), using the specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pipelines (which lists) and update_pipeline (which modifies). The description is precise and unambiguous.

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: when you need full configuration of a specific pipeline. It does not explicitly exclude cases where alternatives like list_pipelines or get_pipeline_history might be better. However, the context of sibling tools and the read-only, idempotent nature (from annotations) provide implicit guidance. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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