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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the default count of 3, but says nothing about ordering, whether failed/running runs are included, or how the 1-25 limit bounds the response.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the default count appended. No filler, but also no structural cues beyond that single clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required. However, for a 5-parameter tool with branch and workspace scoping, the description leaves the agent guessing about which runs are counted and what 'latest' means without a branch filter.

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 60% and the description only restates the default of 3, which the schema already declares. It says nothing about branch filtering (a key semantic that determines which runs are 'latest') or workspace scoping, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: returns the status of the latest pipeline runs, with the default count. It is distinguishable from bb_pipeline_get and bb_pipeline_diagnose by its 'latest runs' framing, though it never explicitly says it returns a list for a repo.

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 on when to use this versus bb_pipeline_get or bb_pipeline_diagnose, which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling set. The agent must infer that this is for a quick recent-status overview rather than inspecting one specific pipeline.

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