get_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status information, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job by explaining parameters and return values. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication, and the return description ('Pipeline status including state, duration, and steps') is somewhat vague without an output schema. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'repo_slug' is a repository slug and 'pipeline_uuid' is a Pipeline UUID from 'trigger_pipeline', clarifying the source and purpose of both parameters. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Get status') and resource ('pipeline run'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' (which lists pipelines) and 'get_pipeline_logs' (which retrieves logs). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 context by mentioning 'pipeline_uuid (from trigger_pipeline)', suggesting it should be used after triggering a pipeline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pipelines' or 'stop_pipeline', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied UUID source.

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