circleci_get_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the pipeline is not found (e.g., error handling), rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the API key, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It avoids fluff, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., pipeline status, branch, commit info). It is adequate for a simple get-by-ID operation but lacks completeness in outlining the response or error scenarios.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (api_key, pipeline_id) with descriptions. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples.

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 tool gets details for a single CircleCI pipeline by ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a single CircleCI pipeline'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like circleci_list_pipelines, which lowers the score from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., circleci_list_pipelines for multiple pipelines, circleci_get_workflow for workflows). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid pipeline ID or API key, though these are implied by the schema. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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