qllm_pipeline

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, implying external API calls and potential side effects. The description mentions it runs a pipeline and returns a trace, but does not disclose costs, latency, or resource consumption. The timeout parameter in schema is noted but not in description. With annotations carrying part of the burden, a 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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence provides relevant information without redundancy. The structure is clean and easy 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. Given the complexity of a multi-step pipeline and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks details on error handling or execution guarantees, but these are not critical for a tool definition.

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 description summarizes the PipelineInput as 'Initial input and 1-8 steps' and explains step autonomy and chaining. Although the input schema has individual descriptions, the description adds high-level context and structure. Given schema coverage 0% in description, it does add meaning, but the schema is rich so baseline is 3, and the extra chaining detail justifies a 4.

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 'Run a sequential multi-model pipeline', which specifies the verb, resource, and structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qllm_chat (single interaction) and qllm_route_task (task routing) by emphasizing the multi-step sequential nature.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for multi-model pipelines, but does not compare to alternatives or state prerequisites. The context of siblings suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks such guidance.

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