Get Pipeline Run Lineage URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds that the output is a lineage graph URL, but it does not disclose details like whether the pipeline run must exist or how the URL is formatted. With annotations in place, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available. The description covers the core purpose sufficiently. The only notable gap is not explaining the provenance or format of pipeline_run_id, but the output schema and annotation coverage compensate for most of what an agent needs.

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 description carries responsibility for explaining the single parameter, pipeline_run_id. It does not mention where the ID comes from, what format it expects, or how it is used. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description still adds no parameter-level meaning.

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, 'Build', and a clear target, 'the URL of a pipeline run's lineage graph in the Orchestra UI.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve statuses, logs, or artifacts, since none of them construct a UI URL.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like pipeline_context or get_pipeline_run_status. The intended use is implied, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

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