Get Pipeline Steps

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination details (page_size, max_pages), default values, recommended limits, and a warning for excessive fetching. This helps the agent understand system constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for purpose, five bullet points for args, one line for returns, and a note. Every part is essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 there is an output schema, the description need not detail return fields. It covers input parameters thoroughly, including behavior warnings. However, it could mention ordering or the fact that steps are returned in chronological order, which would be slightly more complete. Still, very close to complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and recommended maximums. For example, it clarifies that workspace is optional and defaults to configured workspace, and provides specific recommendations for page_size and max_pages. This is far beyond the schema's bare type/default information.

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 explicitly states 'List steps for a pipeline run', which combines a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('pipeline steps') and context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other aspects of pipelines (e.g., get_pipeline_run, get_pipeline_config).

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 for listing pipeline steps but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or when not to use it, such as comparing with get_pipeline_run for retrieving the pipeline itself. Usage is clear but not differentiated from siblings.

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