get_pipeline_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves 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 extremely concise - just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. The bracketed '[Pipeline Management]' prefix provides helpful categorization without adding unnecessary 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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential error conditions, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The combination of no annotations and no output schema means the description should do more heavy lifting.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific pipeline run instance'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_runs', which appear to serve related but distinct purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_latest_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_runs'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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