get-ci-pipeline-events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only describes the tool's function ('aggregate CI pipeline analytics with compute operations') without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This leaves the agent uninformed about important usage constraints.

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 concise, consisting of one functional sentence plus a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the usage examples, but overall it is appropriately sized for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how results are grouped, or how to interpret the computed analytics. For an aggregation tool, these details are critical for correct invocation.

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 has 3 parameters with only 33% description coverage according to context signals. The description adds minimal information beyond the schema (e.g., 'Compute operations' for the compute parameter). It does not explain valid values for metric or type in the compute array, nor clarify the filter or group_by parameters. The agent has to infer too much.

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 clearly states that the tool aggregates CI pipeline analytics with compute operations, and provides example use cases like 'average pipeline duration' and 'failure rate by pipeline'. This makes the purpose specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'aggregate-logs'.

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 gives concrete examples of when to use the tool ('average pipeline duration', 'failure rate by pipeline', 'CI performance trends'), which guides the agent. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools for non-aggregation tasks, such as listing individual pipeline events.

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