getPipelineStep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description's 'Get' aligns with. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name—no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the job is not found. It neither enriches nor contradicts the annotations.

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 with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the verb and object. While very terse, it earns its place and remains easy to parse.

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 simple GET operation with three well-documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what details are returned, how to obtain a job_id, or how this tool relates to sibling tools, leaving minor gaps for an agent selecting it.

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 input schema describes all three parameters (owner, repo, job_id) with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It provides no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as how job_id relates to a pipeline run or step, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a CI job (step)'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like getPipelineSteps or getPipelineStepLogs, and the parenthetical '(step)' leaves some ambiguity about the exact entity.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getPipelineSteps or getPipelineStepLogs. It does not state that it retrieves a single step's details, nor does it mention any prerequisite (e.g., needing a job_id from a pipeline run).

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