ncloud_run_pipeline

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Execute a SourcePipeline pipeline' – it does not indicate whether the operation is synchronous, whether it returns a run ID, whether it is idempotent, or any side effects (e.g., creating history entries). This is essentially a tautology of the tool name, offering no behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at only four words, with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail, but for what it contains, every word earns its place. A longer description would be needed to improve other dimensions, but this is appropriately sized for the minimal information given.

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 tool is an execution/mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations to clarify behavior. The description does not explain the execution semantics, what happens after running, how to check results, or any potential side effects. Given that sibling tools like list_pipeline_history and cancel_pipeline exist, the description should at least reference related operations. This is completely inadequate for a tool that triggers a pipeline.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'projectId' is described as 'Pipeline ID to run'. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description does not need to add much. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Execute') on a specific resource ('a SourcePipeline pipeline'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pipeline, update_pipeline, delete_pipeline, and cancel_pipeline, as 'execute/run' is a distinct operation. However, it lacks any detail about what execution entails (e.g., triggering a build or deployment), so it's not maximally explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how this relates to cancel_pipeline or list_pipeline_history. The verb 'Execute' implies triggering a run, but there is no explicit 'use this to...' or 'instead of...' guidance.

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