rc_pipeline_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only, safe to call anytime,' which is a valuable safety guarantee. It also describes the output content (token usage totals, registered domain summary). While it doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., potential delays or failures), the key behavioral trait of safety is well conveyed.

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 appropriately sized at five short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it is, safety, output summary, primary use case, and alternative tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, usage context, safety profile, and relationship to sibling tools. It provides enough context for an agent to know exactly when and how to invoke it, and what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (project_path), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how to use the parameter, but the schema's description ('Absolute path to the project directory') is sufficient. There is no extra semantic value from the description, but no deficit either.

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's purpose: 'High-level overview of the entire pipeline' and specifies what it shows ('token usage totals and registered domain summary'). It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools by positioning as the high-level counterpart to domain-specific ones.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this FIRST when starting a new session... or when the user asks for a big-picture status.' It also names specific alternatives for detailed per-domain progress (prc_status, rc_status, postrc_status, trace_status), clearly identifying when not to use this tool.

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