pipeline_status

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

The readOnlyHint is consistent and the description goes well beyond it: it discloses the conditional liveness probe that only runs when status="running", the observed_health="worker_missing" outcome, the recovery_hint pointing at pipeline_resume, and the deliberate guarantee that the status field is never rewritten. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then a Parameters block, then the conditional behavior — a sensible order with no filler. The closing parenthetical justifying the design against the spec is slightly verbose for a tool definition, though it does add trust context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape — and it names the fields (status, stage_statuses, needs_input, warnings, record, observed_health, recovery_hint) plus the condition under which the extra fields appear. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate and it does: pipeline_path accepts either pipeline-run.json itself or its parent directory, and include_details defaults to False and returns the full persisted record, which is normally unnecessary because status/stage_statuses/needs_input/warnings suffice. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reads status, missing-info, artifact references of a pipeline run) and explicitly negates the neighbouring actions ('最終化や起動は一切しない'), which separates it from pipeline_run, pipeline_resume and pipeline_cancel. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: call it with the pipeline_path returned by pipeline_run/pipeline_plan, and it is read-only so it never starts or finalizes anything. It also names pipeline_resume as the follow-up when a worker is missing, but does not spell out a full when-to-use/when-not matrix against pipeline_plan or pipeline_run.

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