get_pipeline_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the retrieval action and the key fields, without mentioning what happens on not-found, whether the operation is read-only, or any limits/errors. This leaves an agent without expectations for side effects or failure modes.

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 entire description is a single 10-word sentence, with no redundant content or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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?

For a simple getter with an output schema, the description conveys the core operation, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves gaps around usage context and parameter semantics. The sibling list is large, and without a differentiating note an agent could still be uncertain about selecting this over list_pipeline_jobs or get_pipeline_pod.

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 merely lists the three parameter names in the 'by' phrase, adding only that they together identify the job. It does not explain the meaning of step_index or replica, their formats, or allowed values, so the agent must infer from names.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('one job'), and it names the three identifiers that select the job. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pipeline_jobs (plural) and get_pipeline_job_config/log, which target different resources or collections.

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 the tool is for fetching a single job when all three identifiers are known, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_pipeline_jobs or other siblings, nor state conditions when one should prefer this tool. No exclusion guidance is given.

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