get_order_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or does not modify any data. For a simple getter with no parameters, this is acceptable but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and clarifies the meaning of the pipeline. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose by defining the pipeline. It could be slightly more descriptive about the return format (e.g., whether it returns a list of stages with names and order), but given the simplicity and the clear naming, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter information. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 exactly what the tool does: it gets the workspace order pipeline, and clarifies that this is the configurable stages orders move through. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_order (which returns a single order) and list_orders (which lists orders), and aligns with set_order_pipeline_stage which modifies the pipeline.

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 provides clear context that this tool retrieves the pipeline configuration, which is implicitly when you need to inspect or understand order stages. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer its usage without confusion.

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