Get pipeline run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error scenarios, rate limits, or what exactly constitutes 'state/result'. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious read nature.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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-by-ID tool, the description is terse but incomplete. It does not explain the parameters (0% schema coverage), does not describe the output format (no output schema), and provides no usage context beyond the minimal statement. An agent would need to infer parameter semantics and expected return structure from the tool name and typical Azure conventions.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (pipelineId, runId, project). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify required vs optional, relationships, or value formats. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one Azure Pipeline run') plus what is returned ('its current state/result'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_pipeline_runs (multiple runs) and get_pipeline_run_logs (logs), even though siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The singular 'one' implies retrieval of a specific run rather than a list, but there is no mention of alternatives or conditions (e.g., when to use get_pipeline_run_logs instead). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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