gitlab_get_pipeline_status

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

The description declares the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not specify what happens if both ref and mr_iid are omitted (schema allows both null), nor any error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and lacks these details.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler or redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose and read-only nature; the second gives critical usage guidance. Every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no param descriptions, the description covers ref and mr_iid well but leaves ambiguity about the project parameter (required but not explained) and the behavior when both optional params are missing. While the output schema exists, the description could be more complete regarding edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description clarifies that ref is a branch and mr_iid is a merge request IID, and that they are mutually exclusive. It does not elaborate on the project parameter, but the naming is sufficiently self-explanatory. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types.

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 specifies the exact action ('Get latest pipeline status') and resource ('for a branch/ref or a merge request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_commits or gitlab_get_mr. It also explicitly states it is read-only, further clarifying its safe nature.

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 description directly instructs the agent to 'Provide either ref (branch) or mr_iid', making the parameter choice clear. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the standalone purpose of fetching pipeline status is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools.

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