Read one pipeline run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: explains the meaning of 'status: partial' with 'error_summary', notes what 'items_succeeded' indicates, and explicitly states the auth requirement (secret key with pipeline:read scope). This aligns with and enriches the annotations.

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?

Description is efficient: four sentences, each adding distinct value. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then clarifies partial-run behavior, output meaning, and auth. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the key output fields (status, error_summary, items_succeeded) and the auth requirement. For a simple single-parameter read tool, this is fully adequate and even includes helpful edge-case behavior.

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 coverage for the single 'id' parameter is 100% with a clear description ('A UUID'). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to since the schema fully documents the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Read one pipeline run', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_pipeline_runs (which lists multiple) and trigger_pipeline_run (which creates runs). The additional context about outcome and partial status reinforces the purpose.

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 phrase 'Read one pipeline run' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need details of a single run, as opposed to listing runs or triggering new ones. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, but the singular scope is unambiguous.

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