Get pipeline metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining what metadata is returned—the CI_* environment visible to a step and the previous pipeline of the same workflow—which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's semantics.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only metadata tool with only two fully-described parameters, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description is adequate on its own. It explains what the tool returns, identifies the practical scenario for using it, and leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 100%, and both parameters (repo_id and number) are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Returns the metadata Woodpecker exposes to the pipeline itself — the CI_* environment a step sees, plus the previous pipeline of the same workflow." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pipeline or get_pipeline_config by focusing on metadata exposed to the pipeline rather than pipeline status or configuration.

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 clear context for when this tool is valuable: "Useful when a step behaves differently than its config suggests." It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to infer when to choose it over related pipeline tools.

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