run_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution and returning results, but lacks critical details: whether this is a long-running process, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., modifying files), error handling, or performance characteristics. For a complex execution tool with 12 parameters, this is inadequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action with key parameters, the second clarifies the execution nature and outcome. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex execution tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'devpipe' is, what kind of results are returned, error conditions, or execution context. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool effectively despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 12 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only vaguely referencing 'configuration and flags' without explaining parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Execute', 'Runs') and resource ('devpipe', 'development pipeline'), specifying it's for execution with configuration and flags. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_devpipe' (validation) or 'list_tasks' (enumeration) by focusing on execution, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over 'check_devpipe' for validation, or when to use 'dryRun' mode versus actual execution. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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