get_pipeline_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The description states what the tool returns (success rate, average duration, failure count), and the verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are computed live or from cached data.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the key statistics it returns. There is no repetitive or extraneous content, so every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, no required parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description fully covers what the tool returns, and the schema handles the 'days' parameter. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to use it relative to raw-run siblings.

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 schema describes the only parameter 'days' with a default value, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but because the schema already fully documents it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('CI/CD pipelines'), and the exact output ('summary statistics including success rate, average duration, and failure count'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_runs, which would provide raw run details rather than a summary.

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 term 'summary statistics' implies that this tool is for aggregate insight rather than detailed run-level data, so usage is implied. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_pipeline_runs or get_deployments, nor does it list any exclusions.

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