Get PR pipeline status

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

Annotations already document readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context such as result ordering (most recent first) and the granularity (per-step pass/fail state), which is valuable beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details, followed by actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the user will get (statuses and step states) and how to proceed. It is self-contained and works well with the annotations and sibling context, leaving no critical gaps.

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 100%, with all three parameters (repo, pr_id, workspace) already documented. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it carries no extra burden beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of pipelines triggered by this PR') and adds scope details ('most recent first', 'each step's pass/fail state'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on pipeline status rather than PR details or logs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to find failing steps') and directs to the follow-up tool ('then use get_pipeline_step_log to read logs'). This provides clear contextual guidance and differentiates from alternatives.

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