Rote Describe Pipeline

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is real: it discloses that URL passwords in the runtime trigger config are redacted and that unknown names fail with the list of registered names, both non-obvious behaviors. It stops short of describing size limits or config shape edge cases, so not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the return contents front-loaded and the error behavior trailing, with no filler. It is long but every clause carries information; slightly more structure (e.g., splitting the failure case) would improve scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes the entry's parts and pairs that with the unknown-name failure path. For a one-parameter read tool this is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the parameter's schema text already explains it is the registered name exactly as rote_list_pipelines reports it and doubles as the trigger tool name. The description reinforces but does not extend that meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and a tightly scoped resource ('one registered pipeline's full registry entry'), then enumerates exactly what the entry contains: trigger JSON Schema, runtime trigger config, and tool names. The 'one registered pipeline' framing contrasts naturally with the singleton sibling rote_list_pipelines, so an agent can distinguish them without opening a 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?

Usage context is clear: use this to inspect a single pipeline's full registry entry, and the name must come 'exactly as rote_list_pipelines reports it', which routes the agent through the sibling first. It also states the failure behavior, so an agent knows a bad name returns the registered list rather than an opaque error. No explicit when-not/exclusion is given, which keeps it below 5.

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