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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that – each reference comes with a state and a blocking reason – but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or how states are represented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by defining scope. Slightly harder to parse than a plain list, but not padded.

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-only listing tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description conveys enough: the kinds of references returned and the fact that each carries a state and blocker. The shape of the returned state field remains undefined, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the revision number and pipeline key (including the 'entry' special case) are already documented in the schema, and one parameter even points to the sibling list_pipeline_revisions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (everything a pipeline revision names) and enumerates the reference kinds covered: escalation paths, webhook endpoints, delegated pipelines, and edition block dependencies. An agent can tell this apart from get_pipeline_revision because it returns the referenced entities rather than the revision itself, though the sibling relationship is never stated explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'what stands in the way of activating it' suggests calling this before activate_pipeline_revision to diagnose blockers, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g. list_pipeline_uses, read_reference) is given.

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