diagnose_pipeline_failure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not mention what happens if the pipeline is not failed, whether an empty list is returned, or if any errors occur. It also lacks details about pagination or output shape, which is a significant gap given no 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?

The description is a single six-word sentence that is direct and to the point. It contains no filler or redundant information, every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, which are important because there are no annotations. For a straightforward read tool, it works, but it could be more complete by mentioning when to use it and what to expect.

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 only parameter, pipeline_id, has a self-explanatory name and the description adds the contextual detail that it refers to a failed pipeline. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for missing details like the expected format or how to obtain the ID. It provides minimal added meaning beyond the name itself.

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 ('Get') and identifies a precise resource ('failed steps of a failed pipeline'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_pipeline_steps, which retrieves all steps, and get_pipeline_step_log, which fetches logs. The scope is unambiguous.

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 context (diagnosing a failed pipeline) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools like get_pipeline_steps and get_pipeline_step_log exist, but the description does not mention them or explain when to choose this over them. The context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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