get_merge_request_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns pipeline data with job statuses and IDs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the utility of returned data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the return data includes jobs and statuses with IDs usable for get_job_log. However, for a tool that fetches pipeline data, it lacks details on response format, error cases, or data freshness, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 schema already fully documents the merge_request_iid parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get the last pipeline data'), target resource ('for a specific merge request'), and scope ('including all jobs and their statuses'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_merge_request_details or get_pipeline_test_summary by focusing on pipeline data rather than general MR info or test summaries.

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 clear context by specifying it retrieves 'the last pipeline data' and mentions job IDs can be used with get_job_log, implicitly suggesting when to use this tool versus get_job_log. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_merge_request_test_report or get_pipeline_test_summary.

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