d3p_pipeline_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It indicates a read-only 'check' operation but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or polling behavior. Minimal behavioral detail beyond basic safety.

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?

Two sentences: one for purpose and one for the parameter. Front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, making it highly scannable.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description needn't detail return values. It provides the essential info: purpose and parameter source. Minor gap: no mention of how to interpret status in response, but output schema likely covers that.

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%, so description compensates by explaining pipeline_id as 'the ID returned by d3p_pipeline_execute,' adding critical context about where the value comes from that the schema alone lacks.

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 'Check the status of a running pipeline execution,' specifying the action (check status) and resource (pipeline execution). Among siblings like d3p_pipeline_execute and d3p_pipeline_result, this tool's purpose is distinct and 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 after d3p_pipeline_execute by referencing the pipeline_id from that tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for final result) or mention of alternatives like d3p_pipeline_result.

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