Get pipeline details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that the tool returns names, states, exit codes, and lists failed step ids in 'failed_step_ids', plus suggests fetching step logs with get_step_logs. However, it does not mention safety (read-only), error behavior, or any other side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose immediately, followed by a useful pointer to get_step_logs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the main return content (workflows, steps, states, exit codes) and the failed_step_ids field, plus a cross-reference to another tool. It does not detail the exact shape of the response or error cases, but for a read-only get operation this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents each parameter (instance, repo, branch, number). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 clearly states the tool 'Gets one pipeline with its workflows and steps (names, states, exit codes)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pipelines by focusing on a single pipeline and its internal details, and points to get_step_logs for failed step output.

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 when you need detailed pipeline information including workflows and steps, and references get_step_logs for following up on failed steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of list_pipelines or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicitly stated.

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