get_pipeline

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does establish that this is a retrieval ("Return") with no arguments and tells the agent the data includes run status, which signals freshness comes along with the map. It says nothing about cost, size, permissions, or whether the call has side effects, which matters for a zero-param call whose name does not itself imply read-only semantics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the object returned, then the enumerated contents. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and the shape of the payload is briefly characterized. But with zero annotations and several plausible sibling tools that also surface map data, the definition leaves the agent without routing criteria or any note on cost/freshness.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no scoping inputs are needed to fetch the whole map.

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 uses a clear verb ("Return") and specific resource ("the whole map"), then enumerates the payload: nodes with params, script and latest run status, edges, and a topological order. An agent knows exactly what it gets. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from siblings like open_map or export_map, which plausibly return the same map.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus open_map, export_map, or list_runs. The word "whole" faintly implies a full fetch rather than a partial one, but no explicit condition or alternative is named.

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