run_pipeline

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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the status outcomes (pipeline_status=blocked, complete_with_unresolved, complete), the error-vs-gap distinction, and the guarantee that it 'GUESSES NOTHING' and aggregates unresolved gaps into one human-decision list.

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?

Purpose and the chained-tool sequence are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational content. It is dense rather than padded, though the 'Honest by construction' framing is slightly rhetorical and the run is long for a single description.

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?

For a 17-parameter, no-output-schema capstone tool, the description supplies what is otherwise missing: the stage order, the fallback behavior of netlist=, and the terminal status values an agent must interpret. Nothing critical to invoking or reading results is absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds conditional semantics by explaining that optional stages ('?') run only when their input is present and that omitting netlist= falls back to the session board. It does not go further into per-parameter interaction, so it sits just above baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('run the whole deterministic DESIGN half in one call') and explicitly enumerates the chained stages, so an agent can distinguish it from the individually-verified siblings (import_netlist, design_framework, render_framework, synthesize_acceptance). It also names the output ('a flashable HAL skeleton and a machine-checked acceptance spec').

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 clear context for when to use this over the individual tools ('run the whole deterministic DESIGN half in one call') and explains that optional stages run only when their input is present, plus the netlist= override for the session board. It stops short of explicitly naming when NOT to use it (e.g., when you only need one stage).

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