get_pipeline_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral value by saying the response surfaces failed/warning steps and their error messages, which tells the agent what it will learn. It says nothing about the cost of loading full details or whether logs are included.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero padding, and the most useful payload (failed/warning steps with errors) is stated up front. It is efficient but so terse that the omission reads as under-specification rather than discipline.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives a reasonable sketch of the return content despite there being no output schema. However, it leaves both parameters undocumented and does not distinguish the tool's output from get_pipeline_log, which an agent needs to choose correctly.

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%, so the schema gives no meaning for either parameter and the description must compensate. The description never mentions build_id (the required identifier) or project, so an agent gets no help on which run is targeted or how project scoping interacts with build_id.

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 names a specific resource (one pipeline run) and its content (failed/warning steps with error messages), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_pipeline_runs and get_pipeline_log. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement ("Details of one run" is a noun phrase) and never explicitly contrasts itself with the log-fetching sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_pipeline_log for raw logs or list_pipeline_runs for discovery. The agent must infer the selection rule purely from the tool name.

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