Pipeline Status

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

The readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations already cover side-effect safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a machine-readable view of the status trail intended for branching, not a mutation or file-tail operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. The second sentence clarifies the machine-readable intent without padding.

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 parameterless status tool, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned (per-phase state, next pending phase) and how to use it (branch on state/next). No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete. No parameter explanations are needed; the baseline of 4 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 clearly indicates this tool reports the current pipeline state and next pending phase. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the phrasing 'Where the pipeline is right now' is specific enough for a status getter.

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?

It provides implicit guidance ('branch on state/next instead of tailing files') that this is for programmatic consumption of pipeline status. It does not explicitly contrast with related tools like job_status or dashboard_state, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this one.

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