pipeline_timeline

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only conveys that filtering shrinks the payload; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, permission requirements, or what happens when timelineId or pipelineId are omitted, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the filtering hint appended. The comma splice makes the 'to reduce the amount of data' clause read awkwardly, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 six-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the filters but leaves the return shape, record ordering, and the roles of projectId/pipelineId/timelineId entirely to the schema. Adequate minimum, but thin for the tool's complexity.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the single-value-or-array enum shape for state and result. The description only restates the two filters and adds no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: retrieve the timeline of stages and jobs for a pipeline run. That scope separates it from get_pipeline_run (run-level summary) and get_pipeline_log (log text), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives one piece of situational guidance — filter by state and result to reduce returned data — but no indication of when to prefer this over get_pipeline_run or get_pipeline_log, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid runId from list_pipeline_runs.

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