get-pipeline-by-name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the pipeline does not exist (error vs null), or any side effects. The term 'get' implies retrieval, but no behavioral traits are explicitly described.

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, front-loaded sentence. It contains no fluff and every word adds value. Perfectly concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks any mention of return type, error handling, or parameter usage context. For example, it does not explain that extractFields can reduce payload size or that include filters by deletion status. The description is too sparse to fully guide an AI agent.

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 high (75%). The description does not add new meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., fqn format, fields, include, extractFields). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 explicitly states 'Get pipeline by fully qualified name', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-chart-by-name or get-table-by-name by focusing on pipeline resources. The concise wording leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-pipelines or get-pipeline. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions. The description assumes the agent knows when to retrieve a pipeline by FQN.

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