get_pipeline_variables

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

Description provides no behavioral traits beyond the basic read intent. No mention of read-only, side effects, return format, or pagination. With no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks necessary detail. Not ideal for tool selection, as it omits scope and context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, description should clarify what 'variables' means (e.g., scope, system vs. custom). Does not address potential ambiguity with sibling tools like get_pipeline_yaml which may also contain variable info.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'Get variables defined for a pipeline'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves variables for a pipeline, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'variables defined for a pipeline'. Distinguished from sibling tools like get_pipeline_runs or get_pipeline_yaml.

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 or when not to use, nor any alternatives mentioned. Sibling tools like get_pipeline_yaml or list_pipelines might overlap, but no exclusions are given.

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