Pipeline Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, which cover safety. The description adds that the status is 'live' and that active_only defaults to true, but does not disclose other behaviors like refresh rate, pagination, or output format. Given annotations handle major transparency needs, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one line of purpose followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Every line adds value, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 existing (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. All four optional parameters are explained. However, the description does not clarify whether 'live' implies real-time updates or a point-in-time snapshot, and does not mention limitations like rate limits or result size. Minor gaps prevent a score of 5.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so with concise comments: 'tenant: Tenant name (uses default if empty)', 'active_only: Only show pipelines with active items (default true)'. These add meaning beyond the schema types and defaults, though more detail on filter interactions would be beneficial.

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 'Live pipeline status showing what's currently queued/running.' This specifically identifies the resource (pipeline status) and the action (showing live status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_build (specific build) or list_builds (listing all builds).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for an overview of pipeline status, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for detailed build logs) or contrast with siblings like get_build_failures or get_build_times.

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