start_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default-branch fallback, tag handling, variable passing, and prerequisites, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., consumes CI/CD resources), return behavior (e.g., whether it waits or is async), or error conditions if prerequisites are unmet. This is a mutation-like tool, so more transparency would be expected.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and free of redundant detail. Every sentence contributes: core action, branch/tag behavior, and requirements/custom variables. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the tool's action, main parameter behaviors, and prerequisites. However, since there is no output schema, it should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a pipeline object or ID) and whether execution is asynchronous. It also omits error handling for missing .gitflic-ci.yaml or runner registration. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a bit of semantic nuance by explicitly explaining the refName/isTag relationship ('set isTag=true for tags') and that custom variables are accepted, but the schema already documents these aspects adequately. It does not go beyond the schema in any meaningful way.

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 'Start a new CI/CD pipeline execution', with a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like restart_pipeline and cancel_pipeline by emphasizing 'new'. The scope is explicit: default branch, refName for branches/tags, and custom variables.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to launch a new pipeline execution. It also specifies key usage details (default branch, refName for branches/tags, isTag parameter, custom variables) and prerequisites (.gitflic-ci.yaml and a registered runner). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit exclusion guidance.

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