List pipeline bridges

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that bridge jobs lead to downstream child or multi-project pipelines. It does not discuss pagination or response details, but the output schema and annotations reduce the need for that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to either the action, the resource, or the 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?

For a simple, read-only list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the lack of parameter-level guidance, but that is already captured in the parameter_semantics dimension.

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 only 25%, and the description adds no detail about pipeline_id, page, or per_page. The agent must infer parameter meaning from names and the one schema comment for 'project', which is insufficient for four parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('bridge jobs for a pipeline') and explains the purpose: discovering downstream child or multi-project pipelines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipeline_jobs and get_pipeline.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('to discover downstream child or multi-project pipelines'), which orients the agent among the many pipeline-related sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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