get_evaluation_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Get an evaluator pipeline by ID' without mentioning read-only behavior, error cases (e.g., not found), or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool without annotations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It includes the essential action and a useful clarification about ID types, making it both concise and structured.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does and the accepted input, which is sufficient for this level of complexity.

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 description for pipeline_id is 'Family workflow_id OR version PK id,' which adds meaningful detail beyond the raw string type. It clarifies that the parameter accepts either type, providing essential context for correct usage.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves an evaluator pipeline by ID, and explicitly mentions it accepts both family workflow_id and version PK. The name and description unambiguously differentiate it from other getter tools like get_prompt or get_experiment.

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: provide a pipeline_id to get the evaluator pipeline. It mentions the acceptable ID types, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools, but given the specific resource, that's not necessary.

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