Pipeline Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that it reports per-stage status and a 'next' field, which is largely restated by the output schema; no permissions, failure modes, or freshness caveats are disclosed.

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?

Three tight lines, front-loaded with the purpose and using explicit 'Use when' / 'Returns' labels. Every sentence carries routing or scope information; no filler.

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?

A read-only status tool with one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and full annotation coverage. The description's routing guidance plus the structured fields give the agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single app_dir parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show which pipeline stages are done or pending') plus the scope of the report. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (pipeline_next, orchestrator_next_action), so an agent can differentiate it without opening any schema.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when' clause scoping it to checking progress of one app, and routes the agent to the correct alternatives for adjacent needs (pipeline_next for next instructions, orchestrator_next_action for the autonomous loop). No inference required.

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