ado_pipeline_run_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it reads a run, such as permission requirements, error behavior, or what the nested target implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with a nested target object and three required parameters.

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 tool is a simple read operation and annotations cover its safety profile, but the nested target object has five optional fields with no descriptions and the schema has 0% coverage. The description does not explain the target object or provide enough context to call the tool confidently beyond its name.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three required parameters or the nested target object. It does not explain pipelineId, runId, or the target fields, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 uses a clear verb, 'Read', and a specific resource, 'a specific pipeline run'. It implicitly distinguishes retrieval of one run from the sibling list operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ado_pipeline_runs_list or ado_pipeline_run.

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 phrase 'a specific pipeline run' implies usage when the agent already has a run identifier, which is a reasonable contextual cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ado_pipeline_runs_list or ado_pipeline_run, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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