gitlab_pipeline_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned fields (status, ref, sha, web_url) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about behavior on a missing id, permission requirements, or cross-project resolution.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the return fields in a tight parenthetical. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter single-record read with readOnly annotations, the description covers what it returns, which is the main missing structured signal. It stops short of explaining id acquisition or error behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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 50%: 'project' is fully documented in the schema (group/name or numeric id with a default), while 'pipeline_id' is a bare integer. The description's 'by id' only restates the obvious, so it neither compensates for nor harms the coverage gap.

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 ('Fetch one pipeline by id') and enumerates the fields returned, which distinguishes it from the sibling gitlab_pipeline_jobs (which lists jobs, not pipeline metadata). It does not explicitly name siblings, but the singular 'one pipeline by id' is unambiguous against a list-style tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the tool for retrieving a single pipeline's details once it has an id. There is no statement of when to prefer it over gitlab_pipeline_jobs or how to obtain a pipeline_id in the first place, and no exclusions.

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