bb_get_pipeline_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core output (steps with status and duration) but does not mention pagination, filtering, authentication, or other behavioral traits. The schema provides parameter details, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious list operation.

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 front-loads the primary purpose and key output fields. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values more explicitly. It states the tool lists steps with status and duration, which gives a basic expectation, but it doesn't describe the response structure (e.g., array of objects) or pagination behavior. Given the simplicity of the tool and rich schema, it is adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only renames the pipeline_uuid concept implicitly. Parameters like page, pagelen, filter, and output_format are well-documented in the schema, so no further compensation is needed.

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 ('List'), the resource ('steps/stages of a pipeline run'), and the specific data returned ('with their status and duration'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_pipeline (which fetches pipeline details) and bb_get_pipeline_step_log (which retrieves logs for a specific step).

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 context is clear: use this when you have a pipeline_uuid and need to see the steps of that run. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as distinguishing from bb_get_pipeline_step_log, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct that a user can infer the right tool.

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