Change Status

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: automatic fetching of the latest completed buildset when the change is not in pipeline, and the ~75% size reduction from brief mode. This adds useful context without contradicting 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a brief behavior paragraph, and a concise argument list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the requirement to provide either 'change' or 'url', though this is implied by 'alternative to change + tenant'. Overall, it gives enough context 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 'Args' section explains each of the four parameters in plain language: change accepts a number or ref, tenant defaults from env, url is an alternative to change+tenant, and brief is for reducing output for repeated polls. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with 'Pipeline status for a specific change or PR/MR', which clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_build or get_status. It also explains conditional behavior (in-pipeline vs not), reinforcing the specific resource and verb.

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 contextual guidance about when the tool shows live status vs fetches the latest completed buildset, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The 'Use for repeated polls' hint is about the brief mode, not tool selection.

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