Get pipeline

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing that the result includes workflows, steps, step ids, state, and exit_code, and that these guide next actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 densely informative sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the practical hint about step state/exit_code follows naturally.

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 the output schema exists and the two parameters are fully documented, the description covers the remaining operational knowledge: what is returned and how it feeds into get_step_logs. For a read-only, idempotent lookup, this is sufficient.

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% and both parameters already have rich descriptions (repo_id explained via lookup_repository; number explained as per-repository counter vs global id). The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns one pipeline with its workflows and steps'), and goes beyond the title by naming the key output (step id) and its downstream consumer (get_step_logs). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_pipelines, get_pipeline_config, and get_pipeline_metadata.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool: you need a step id for get_step_logs, and step state/exit_code tell you which step to inspect. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like get_pipeline_config, so it stops short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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