get_pipeline_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the default behavior of using the active version when version_id is null, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or other side effects, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences containing only essential information. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 tool is a simple read operation with an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is read and the default version behavior, which covers the main contextual needs. It does not over-explain, relying on the output schema for return structure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for version_id by explaining the default behavior, and pipeline_id is implied as the pipeline identifier. However, it does not explicitly name or describe the parameters, leaving some ambiguity about their exact roles.

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 'Read[s] a pipeline's saved SQL and visual pipeline graph', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like save_pipeline_sql (write) and generate_pipeline_sql (create) by focusing on reading the saved artifacts.

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 implies usage by indicating it reads the saved SQL and graph, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_pipeline_sql or list_pipelines. The 'Defaults to the active version' note provides some context, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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