pipeline_jobs

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

The description starts with [READ] indicating read-only, and explains the return structure including truncation behavior. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but it covers key behavioral aspects for a listing tool.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the purpose, then the return format, and finally an Args list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly shorter without loss of clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return structure (project, pipeline, jobs, returned, limit, truncated) and mentions truncation. This is sufficient for a job-listing tool, though it omits details like job fields and error handling.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear explanations for all four parameters: project (id or full path), pipeline (from list_pipelines), limit (default 100), and target (server target from config). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/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?

The description clearly states it returns jobs of a pipeline/run with status and failure reason. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pipelines and pipeline_detail by focusing on jobs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from job_trace_tail or other job-related tools.

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 implies usage: when you need jobs of a specific pipeline. It mentions the relationship to list_pipelines (pipeline id from there). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer.

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