ncloud_get_pipeline

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation ('Get detailed information'). No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior) are disclosed. The description does not contradict annotations but adds no new information beyond them.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant words or phrases. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies that the output includes 'tasks and triggers', which gives some idea of the return content. However, without an output schema, a brief mention of the overall return structure (e.g., object with fields like name, status) would improve completeness.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'projectId' with a clear description ('Pipeline ID (from ncloud_list_pipelines)'). The tool description does not add any further semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('a specific SourcePipeline pipeline'), and the scope ('including tasks and triggers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ncloud_list_pipelines' which lists all pipelines, and 'ncloud_get_pipeline_history_detail' which focuses on history. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 context (to get details of a specific pipeline) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ncloud_list_pipelines' or 'ncloud_get_pipeline_history_detail'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The usage is clear but not explicit in guiding the agent.

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