Pipes Get Pipe Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only what 'status' comprises; it says nothing about freshness of the data, required privileges, or behavior when the pipe does not exist. Useful but modest value on top of annotations.

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 the resource and returned facets stated immediately and no filler.

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 schema documentation, complete safety annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient to select and call it. The only gap is the unstated relationship to pipes_describe_pipe, which an agent must guess at.

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 database, schema_name and pipe_name are already documented in the schema (including the uppercase-quoting rule). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but warrants only the baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Snowpipe') plus the concrete facets returned (pending file count, last ingested timestamp). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent pipes_describe_pipe, leaving the status-vs-configuration split to inference, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'status' implies a monitoring/health-check use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. pipes_describe_pipe for configuration, pipes_list_pipes for discovery). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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