get_pipeline_steps

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 only states a simple get operation and offers no information about output format, ordering, permissions, or potential side effects. The existence of an output schema helps somewhat, but the description itself is thin.

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?

At nine words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded, containing no redundant or irrelevant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail. It does not explain what constitutes a step or how the results are structured, though the output schema presumably covers the latter. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 has one required parameter, pipeline_id, with 0% coverage in the description. The description implies that pipeline_id identifies the pipeline whose steps are returned, but it adds no format, examples, or constraints beyond what the parameter name and type already convey. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 identifies the operation (get) and resource (a pipeline's steps), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_step_log (logs for a step) and get_pipeline (pipeline details). However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other pipeline-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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