coding_run_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds authorization context. However, it does not describe side effects, potential destruction, rate limits, or output behavior, even though an output schema exists.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by bulleted args. Every sentence adds value, though it could benefit from more structured formatting.

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 complexity (runs a pipeline action) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the pipeline does, its return values, or prerequisites. It is missing contextual details that would help an agent fully understand its use.

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 briefly explains `message` as free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks format details and does not cover all aspects of parameter usage.

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 states it runs the coding domain agent action `run_pipeline` and explains the routing scope, which gives a clear verb+resource. However, it does not describe what a 'pipeline' is in this context, lacking differentiation from sibling tools like coding_run_command.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coding_run_tests or coding_process_ticket_with_branch. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage.

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