run_pipeline

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

Annotations already mark readOnly false and idempotent false, so the mutation/non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds context that execution uses each stage's persistent baseline config (vs ad-hoc config), but it doesn't disclose side effects, latency, or external calls beyond the 'retrieve then rerank' example. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence that states action, object, scope, and config behavior. Every clause earns its place; no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the operation and config behavior, and annotations plus output schema handle safety and return format. However, the sole required parameter external_inputs is left entirely undescribed, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation. The missing run_stage contrast is minor because siblings imply it.

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% and the description never mentions external_inputs or explains what shape/contents the object should have. With additionalProperties true, the agent gets no guidance on required keys or semantics from either source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), names the resource ('the entire loaded pipeline graph'), and specifies the scope ('end to end', 'every stage'), distinguishing it from sibling run_stage without needing to inspect schemas. The 'current persistent baseline config' qualifier adds precision about how stages are configured.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: when you want the full pipeline executed end to end rather than a single stage. It doesn't explicitly name run_stage as the alternative or state exclusions, but the 'entire loaded pipeline graph' phrasing makes the route evident.

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