Start a skill pipeline

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: that it creates a new run (non-read), is not destructive, and that each call generates a new run (non-idempotent). It also explains the need to read the context_packet and call checkin_pipeline_step, and notes that progress is visible live. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 short, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the action and return values. Every sentence is meaningful and contributes to understanding. It is concise without omitting critical information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and the next steps (read context_packet, call checkin_pipeline_step). It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites or error conditions, but it is largely complete for the tool's purpose.

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 baseline is 3. The description highlights key parameters (root_skill_slug, report_id) and explains the mode enum (handoff vs cloud), but the schema already provides these descriptions. The description adds minimal extra semantic value, so a 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 verb 'start', the resource 'skill pipeline run for a report', and what it returns (run_id, context_packet, step list). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pipeline_run or get_pipeline_logs by outlining the flow and subsequent step (checkin_pipeline_step).

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 provides clear context: use this to start a pipeline, then execute steps and call checkin_pipeline_step. It implies the appropriate context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Still, it gives strong usage guidance for the intended flow.

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