Pipeline Status

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds temporal context with 'live' and 'currently queued/running', which is beyond the annotations. It also notes the active_only default, giving useful behavior insight 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 a single front-loaded sentence explaining purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every line provides value; no fluff or 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?

The tool is simple with four optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description sufficiently explains the live status scope and filter semantics; the output schema covers return structure, so no additional detail is required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four parameters and their meanings (e.g., 'Pipeline name filter', 'Only show pipelines with active items'). It adds default context for tenant (env) and active_only, but lacks deeper type/constraint details.

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 it shows 'live pipeline status' with what's 'queued/running', which is a specific verb-resource pair. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pipelines (listing) and get_job (single job) by emphasizing current runtime state.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so an agent cannot tell if this is the right choice over list_pipelines or get_job for a given intent.

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