Pipeline Validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds the key behavioral fact that the manifest is not modified, reinforcing rather than contradicting the annotations. The only gap is that the 'Returns' line largely restates what the output schema already provides, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 short, front-loaded lines with zero filler: purpose, usage trigger, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With rich annotations, a 100%-documented two-parameter schema, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, and that it is side-effect-free. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'stage' and 'app_dir' are fully documented in the schema, including examples and the pointer to pipeline_status for valid stage ids. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 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 ('Run a stage's enforced gate') with a precise scope qualifier ('without modifying the manifest'). An agent can distinguish it from pipeline_mark, which does modify the manifest, without reading either 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?

The 'Use when: self-checking before pipeline_mark(done)' line gives an explicit trigger condition and names the alternative it precedes. The read-only contrast with pipeline_mark makes the selection decision unambiguous.

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