Check in a pipeline step

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

Annotations only indicate idempotentHint=true and no destruction. The description adds behavioral context by stating it updates the live React Flow canvas for real-time progress, which is a meaningful side effect beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, and includes all key information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, 3 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, effect, optional fields, and real-time update context. It lacks explicit return value info but is sufficient for an action tool.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description mentions optional fields (notes, PR URL, agentId) but does not add deeper meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Report'), resource ('pipeline step'), and the specific statuses it handles. It also distinguishes from sibling read-only tools like get_pipeline_run and start_skill_pipeline by focusing on completion reporting.

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 usage (when a step completes) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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