pipeline_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a read-oriented tool (status reporting), but it does not disclose whether it requires authentication, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output format is. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 a pipeline status tool with no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the different stages are, what 'what comes next' entails, or how to interpret the status. For a tool that likely returns structured pipeline data, more context about the stages and the meaning of pending/done would be valuable.

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 schema has one required parameter `app_dir` with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it provides no semantics for it. With one parameter and no schema description, the description should ideally explain what `app_dir` represents. However, the baseline for a single parameter is 3 when the schema is minimal but the parameter is self-evident from name; still, some explanation would help.

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 purpose: reporting app pipeline status including which stages are done/pending and what comes next. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like `pipeline_next`, `setup_status`, or `orchestrator_next_action`, which appear to have overlapping status-reporting roles. Without distinguishing its unique scope, an agent may struggle to choose it over 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description implies a general status query but does not specify in which contexts it should be preferred over `pipeline_next`, `setup_status`, or other pipeline-related tools.

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