trigger-pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('trigger') but doesn't cover critical traits like whether this is a mutation (likely yes), authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., starting a build consumes resources), or response format, leaving significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (triggering a build pipeline is a mutation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what to expect after invocation, which are crucial for an agent to use 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%, so the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a pipeline is triggered, which is already covered by the tool name and purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('trigger') and resource ('build pipeline in Azure DevOps'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get-builds' or 'get-pipeline-status' that might also interact with pipelines, missing explicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid definition), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get-builds' for monitoring, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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