get_ci_pipelines_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a read-only list operation (implied by 'List endpoint'), supports search queries with a linked syntax guide, and includes pagination behavior with a linked reference. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: one stating the core functionality, one detailing search and pagination behavior with helpful links, and one providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (a searchable, paginated list operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description does a good job of covering essential context: purpose, search capability, pagination, and usage intent. However, it doesn't describe the response format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results, especially without an output schema. This minor gap prevents a score of 5.

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 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, but it does mention that events 'match a search query' and results are paginated, which provides useful context about how the tool operates. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds some value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns CI Visibility pipeline events that match a search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('CI Visibility pipeline events'), and scope ('that match a search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_ci_pipelines_events' or 'get_ci_tests_events', which limits the score to 4 instead of 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 provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest pipeline events.' This implies when to use it (for viewing recent events) but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_ci_pipelines_events' or 'aggregate_ci_pipelines_analytics'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

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