pipelines_info

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 indicates the tool is for viewing/checking/verifying/monitoring, which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like non-destructive behavior or permission requirements. The description adds some context about providing comprehensive information, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point-like usage scenarios. It avoids redundancy and stays focused on essential information. However, the final sentence ('The tool provides comprehensive pipeline information and structure details') is somewhat repetitive of earlier points, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks completeness. It covers the tool's purpose and usage well, but misses details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only confirmation, error cases) and output specifics. For a tool with 2 parameters and moderate complexity, this leaves the agent with some uncertainty about full behavior.

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%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema (pipeline name and JSON output option). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pipeline name formats or JSON usage scenarios. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as displaying detailed pipeline configuration with specific functions like viewing stage configuration, checking connected applications, verifying settings, and monitoring status. It distinguishes from siblings like pipelines_create (creation) and pipelines_list (listing) by focusing on detailed information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_app_info or similar tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios (e.g., view stage configuration, check connected applications) that clarify when to use this tool. It implies usage for detailed pipeline inspection rather than creation (pipelines_create) or listing (pipelines_list), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for overlapping functions like get_app_info, preventing a score of 5.

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