list_pipelines

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it explains the truncated flag, that truncation is measured via one extra fetched row, and how the agent should react. It does not cover broader runtime traits such as rate limits or auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the [READ] tag and purpose, then return shape, then the truncation caution, then per-arg notes. Well organized with little waste, though the 'never guessed' phrasing is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers return keys, the truncation edge case, and every parameter. What remains unaddressed is marginal — e.g. auth context — but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: project documents the accepted 'group/project' path form, status gives example values, limit states default 20 and max 99, and target explains it comes from config and may be omitted for the default.

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+resource ('Recent pipelines/runs for a project') with ordering ('newest first') and a return shape, so an agent can tell it apart from pipeline_detail or pipeline_jobs. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied by the verb and by the truncation note directing the agent to re-run with a higher limit. There is no statement of when to reach for list_pipelines versus pipeline_detail or pipeline_jobs, nor prerequisites such as auth scope.

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