getPipelineSteps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states that it lists steps and results, but provides no information on read-only vs. mutating behavior, rate limits, required permissions, or what the response structure looks like. It also doesn't mention whether the steps are ordered or if pagination is involved, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to read and process. It is appropriately sized for the intended purpose, though it could front-load a bit more detail about the scope, but overall it fits the expected length.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool is related to pipeline steps, the description should elaborate on the return format, such as whether results include status, timing, or logs. It also lacks information about any required authentication or workspace context. The description is minimal and does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 only 33%, with only pipeline_uuid having a description. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it doesn't explain what repo_slug and workspace are for, nor does it clarify the format of pipeline_uuid beyond what the schema says. Since the coverage is low, I rate this at 3 because it doesn't compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 'list' and the resource 'steps within a pipeline run and their results', effectively distinguishing it from related tools like listPipelineRuns and getPipelineRun. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getPipelineStepLogs, but the focus on steps and results is clear enough for selection.

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 it should be used to list pipeline steps, which is evident from the name and context. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over getPipelineStepLogs or other pipeline tools, but the context of 'listing steps and results' is a clear enough usage context, though it lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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