verify_openpipeline_dql_processor

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

The description explicitly states the tool does not mutate any configuration and is safe/read-only. It describes the return type (validation errors or success indicator). With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The key purpose and safety info are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers the workflow with sibling tool. The schema is well-documented (100% coverage). The tool is simple with one required parameter; no gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what is already in the schema for 'body', 'script', 'configurationId', and 'protectedFields'.

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 validates a DQL processor script and distinguishes it as read-only. It mentions the specific verb 'Validate' and resource 'DQL processor script', and the sibling tool 'update_openpipeline_configuration' provides differentiation.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before applying changes via update_openpipeline_configuration, establishing a clear workflow. It also notes the tool is safe and read-only, giving guidance on appropriate usage context.

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