get-pipeline-service

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, permission requirements, or return value structure. With no annotations, the agent has no information beyond the basic operation. The description does not disclose any side effects or constraints.

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 at seven words, with no redundant language. However, the brevity sacrifices informativeness. A slightly longer description could provide necessary context without being bloated.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description fails to cover essential aspects: what a pipeline service is, what fields are returned, the meaning of the 'include' parameter, and how this tool relates to siblings like list-pipeline-services. The description is insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 only 33% (only 'fqn' has a description). The description itself adds no parameter meaning; it does not explain 'fields' or 'include' options. For an agent to understand how to use these parameters, it must rely solely on the schema, which is insufficient.

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 'Get pipeline service by name' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (pipeline service) and implies a lookup by name. It distinguishes from siblings like get-pipeline (which returns a pipeline, not a service) and get-pipeline-by-name (which is for pipelines, not pipeline services), but does not elaborate on what a pipeline service is.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-pipeline-services or get-pipeline. There is no explanation of the scope or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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