Preview pipeline template

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates no side effects, and the description adds 'dry-run parse and validate,' which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid YAML or what the validation response contains.

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?

A single, dense sentence of 10 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler 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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and a readOnly annotation, so the description captures the core purpose and input types. The lack of an output schema means the description could mention the return value (validation results/errors), but for such a simple tool the gap is minor.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for 'path' or 'yaml,' but the description mentions 'YAML string or file,' which helps map those parameters. It does not clarify precedence when both are provided or expected formats beyond that.

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 phrase 'Dry-run parse and validate' and identifies the resource as 'pipeline template YAML string or file.' This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent sibling tools like 'import_pipeline_template' or 'preview_operation' which involve other operations.

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 for pre-flight validation of a pipeline template, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'validate_project_pipeline' or 'preview_config_change.' There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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