Run agent pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the execution is idempotent, destructive, or requires specific permissions). For an execution tool that likely modifies state or consumes resources, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate purpose and parameters), but the brevity is acceptable.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format of the report, any prerequisites, or how the pipeline interacts with the projects. The tool has several parameters, and the description should provide more context to ensure correct use.

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 coverage is high (80%), so the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds context about the overall purpose (executing a pipeline as a plan) and hints at the relationship between group/projects. However, it does not clarify workspacePath or the default pipeline value beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, it provides marginal added meaning.

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 the tool executes a pipeline on a group/list of projects and returns a report per agent/project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like daedalus_listGroups and daedalus_listProjects that only list resources, and from daedalus/daedalus_init which are setup tools. The verb 'Ejecuta' (executes) and resource 'pipeline' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for running pipelines on groups or projects, which differentiates it from listing or initialization siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as whether to use daedalus_init first. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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