get_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by specifying the returned detail categories, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state behavior for missing pipelines, permission requirements, or whether any side effects occur.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the included details without any wasted words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

The description is adequate for a simple getter, especially with an output schema available to explain return values. However, it omits usage context, alternative routing, and parameter clarification, leaving the agent to rely on schema defaults and sibling names for full context.

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%, and the description does not explain the name, cluster, or namespace parameters. While the parameter names and defaults are fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning and fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Tekton Pipeline'), and enumerates the exact detail content (tasks with dependencies, params, and workspaces). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_run and list_pipelines.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pipeline_run or list_pipelines. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer the intended scope from the resource name alone.

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