pipeline_jobs

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses the return shape ({project, pipeline, jobs, returned, limit, truncated}) and, importantly, the truncation semantics ('when truncated is true this pipeline had more jobs than were returned'). It does not address rate limits, auth, or pagination beyond the limit, so a 4 rather than 5.

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-loaded one-line purpose, then a compact return-shape sentence with the truncation caveat, then an Args block. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value explanation and does it well, including the truncation flag. Parameter coverage is complete despite 0% schema descriptions. The only gap is sibling disambiguation against job_trace_tail/pipeline_detail for an agent choosing among the job-inspection tools.

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 must carry the load, and it does document all four parameters: project (id or full path), pipeline (run id and its origin), limit (max rows, default 100), and target (server target from config, omit for default). That is near-complete compensation for the empty schema descriptions; only format/syntax edge cases are missing.

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+scope: 'Jobs of one pipeline/run with status + failure reason.' This distinguishes it from pipeline_detail and list_pipelines by scoping to jobs of a single run, and it points at list_pipelines as the source of the pipeline id. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so not 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?

The description explains where inputs come from ('pipeline: Pipeline/run id (from list_pipelines)' and 'target: Server target name from config'), which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to prefer this over pipeline_detail or job_trace_tail, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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