list_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains return format and truncation behavior in detail ('one extra row is fetched, never guessed'). The '[READ]' prefix implies read-only. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a list tool, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then truncation details, then parameters. It is efficient but could be slightly more compact. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description outlines the return structure ({project, pipelines, returned, limit, truncated}) and explains truncation. All parameters are documented. For a list tool, this is comprehensive.

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%, but the description fully explains all four parameters with examples, defaults, and constraints (limit max 99, project path format, status values). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description starts with '[READ] Recent pipelines/runs for a project, newest first.' Clearly identifies the verb (list/read), resource (pipelines), and scope (project, sorted). Distinguishes from sibling tools like pipeline_detail and pipeline_jobs by focusing on listing multiple pipelines.

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 guidance on handling truncation ('re-run with higher limit') and explains the truncation detection method. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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