resolve_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states what the tool returns (name, priority, transformations, dynamic sources) and that resolve_sources triggers additional resolution. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, error behavior, or if it modifies state. The description is adequate but missing these traits.

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: two sentences with zero wasted words. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the optional behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and the optional parameter. However, it does not describe the return format, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. It also omits error scenarios or prerequisites. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds context by integrating resolve_sources into the overall behavior, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool resolves a processing pipeline (builtin name or YAML file path) and reports its properties like name, priority, transformations, and dynamic sources. It differentiates between resolving with and without the resolve_sources flag, and the verb 'resolve' paired with the resource 'pipeline' is specific. Among siblings like list_builtin_pipelines, this tool focuses on a single pipeline, so purpose is distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_builtin_pipelines or parse_condition. It does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites. While the second sentence explains the resolve_sources option, it lacks context on choosing between this tool and others.

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