get_pipeline_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'Variable details including key, secured status, and value (if not secured)', which adds some behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary information, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., integrating the explanation into a single paragraph).

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 provides basic purpose, parameter semantics, and return value details. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety or output information, it lacks completeness in areas like error handling, authentication needs, or behavioral nuances. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a read operation in a complex system.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug' and 'variable_uuid' as 'Variable UUID (from list_pipeline_variables)', clarifying the source and purpose of parameters beyond the schema's basic titles. This effectively documents both parameters, though it could provide more context on format or 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's purpose: 'Get details about a specific pipeline variable.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'pipeline variable', making it distinct from siblings like 'list_pipeline_variables' (which lists multiple) or 'create_pipeline_variable' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_pipeline_variable' or 'delete_pipeline_variable' in terms of action specificity.

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 by referencing 'variable_uuid: Variable UUID (from list_pipeline_variables)', suggesting this tool should be used after listing variables to get details for a specific one. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to 'list_pipeline_variables' for bulk details or other get_* tools for different resources), leaving some context to inference.

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