blender_ai_pipeline_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the resume action but does not clarify whether resume mutates the pipeline, whether status is read-only, what side effects resume has, or how 'last successful stage' is determined. This is notably thin for a tool that appears to support both a read operation and a continuation operation.

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 sentence with no filler and the primary action is front-loaded. It is compact and easy to parse, which is appropriate for a tool with only two parameters.

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 tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what status information is returned and what resuming actually does. The description is adequate for a high-level understanding but leaves an agent uncertain about return shape and the semantics of the resume operation.

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 schema already documents both pipeline_id and resume. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though the phrase 'resume from last successful stage' helps clarify the intent of the resume boolean. It does not explain parameter format, defaults, or behavior when resume is omitted.

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 a clear action—get status of a pipeline run—and adds a second behavior, resume from last successful stage. It is specific to pipeline runs and references the pipeline_generate counterpart indirectly through the schema. However, bundling 'status' and 'resume' into one tool muddies the purpose slightly and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status tools like blender_ai_model_status.

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 this tool is used after blender_ai_pipeline_generate to inspect or continue a pipeline run, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. There is no explanation of when to call status versus when to resume, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. Among a very large sibling list, an agent gets little routing help beyond the tool name.

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