get_pipeline_limitations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does well: it discloses the content of the response (method details, limitations, intended use) and the misuse risk it guards against. It stops short of describing the actual return structure or size, which is a minor gap for a static informational tool.

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?

Front-loads the payload ('What this pipeline can and cannot do') and then itemizes the sections. Dense but every clause carries information — the limitation categories are not padding. The parenthetical list is slightly long, but it preempts an agent's follow-up questions.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema documentation tool, this is exactly what an agent needs: what it returns, when to consult it, and what conclusions it forbids. No output schema means return values aren't required in the description, and nothing material is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-pipeline-scoped lookup.

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 a specific verb+resource — it returns what the pipeline can and cannot do, enumerating the exact analysis method (Welch PSD window, band edges, filters), a plain-English limitations list, and intended use. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_metric_definitions or get_band_powers, which return numbers rather than methodological caveats.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Read this before drawing any conclusion from the metrics') plus a concrete when-not/misuse prohibition ('do not present them as clinical, diagnostic, or event-level (ERP/spindle) results'). An agent knows both the trigger and the constraint without inference.

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