get_pipeline

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation by stating it 'queries' status. However, it does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or data freshness. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences only. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second describes the return value. No fluff or redundant 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview of what is returned. It might benefit from more detail on the return structure, but it is sufficient for understanding 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the parameter 'pipeline_id' as a string with description 'Pipeline ID'. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 '查询' (query) and the resource 'Pipeline 状态和进度' (status and progress). It also specifies the returned information, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task_status or list_pipelines.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. It only implies usage through its name.

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