pipeline_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by detailing the kind of progress information returned, which goes beyond a generic 'get status' and gives the agent a concrete sense of the output content.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: it opens with the resource ('pipeline_run') and immediately enumerates the info returned. No filler, every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it names the resource, lists the output categories, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The lone pipeline_id parameter already has a description in the schema ('Default: most recent pipeline in the session'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no further nuance about the parameter, 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?

The description clearly states the tool reports progress of a pipeline_run, listing specific elements (current stage, per-stage status, live job progress, warnings, master light path/view id, integration rejection stats). This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like job_status or pi_status by making the resource and scope explicit.

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 clearly implies usage: call this to get progress of a pipeline_run. It states the scope precisely but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, unlike job_status or wbpp_status. That is clear context without explicit routing, so a 4 fits.

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