pipeline_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response bundles status, score history, artifacts, and active dispatch — helpful since there is no output schema — but says nothing about behavior for an unknown run_id or how 'active dispatch' is scoped.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the returned artifacts come first. It is tight, though terse enough that it leaves gaps rather than being optimally informative.

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 read-only status tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, disclosing the returned sections largely suffices. However, the sole required parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the definition is only minimally complete.

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 0% for the single required run_id parameter, and the description never mentions it. The UUID format/pattern in the schema implies a run identifier, but the description contributes no meaning 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and enumerates the resources returned: run status, score history, artifacts, and the active dispatch. That clearly separates it from pipeline_submit/pause/resume/apply_fixes, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the pipeline_* siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the polling/inspection tool for an existing run.

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