get_pipeline_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without explicitly stating it is a read-only operation, or mentioning potential failure modes, permissions, or side effects. The verb implies retrieval, but the description adds no enriching context beyond that, failing to fully carry the transparency burden.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and clearly conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two fully described parameters and an output schema (handling return value explanation), the description is complete. It does not need to elaborate further; the schema and presence of output schema cover the necessary technical details, and the description concisely defines the operation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id as 'Project ID or path' and pipeline_id as 'Pipeline ID'). The description adds no additional meaning or nuance about parameter usage, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 specifies the action (Get), the resource (single CI/CD pipeline), and the key differentiator (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipelines_tool (bulk listing) and create/retry/cancel/delete pipeline tools. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose 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 when a specific pipeline ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_pipelines_tool to find IDs, or create/retry/cancel tools). It lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on alternative selection, though the phrasing 'by ID' provides implied context.

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