get_pipeline_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a human-readable summary, lists the specific information included, and states that no arguments are needed. It lacks explicit mention of side effects, but for a getter, this is adequate and above average.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted list of return contents. Every line adds value, and no words are wasted. The formatting improves skimmability without excessive length.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains what will be returned, the prerequisite, and the lack of arguments. The output schema can handle the return value details, so the description need not go further.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description reinforces this with 'No arguments needed.' The input schema is empty, so there is no additional parameter semantics to add.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the current pipeline configuration', and explicitly lists the contents (stage models, fallback chains, model catalog). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like update_stage_model or add_catalog_model.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Call startup() first') and implies its use as a read-only inspection tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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