get_latest_pipeline_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information about the latest pipeline run', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned (e.g., status, logs, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in more complex scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('organizationId' and 'pipelineId'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these IDs relate to the 'latest' run or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest pipeline run'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_runs', which might retrieve different scopes of pipeline run information.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to pipelines (e.g., 'get_pipeline_run', 'list_pipeline_runs', 'get_pipeline'), but the description doesn't specify that this tool is for the 'latest' run only, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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