List pipeline jobs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which communicate it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that results include stages, status, runner, artifacts, and failure reason, but doesn't mention default pagination size, max results, or any rate-limiting behavior.

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 single-sentence and concise. It could benefit from a brief mention of scope filtering or pagination, but the core semantics are captured efficiently.

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?

The description adequately states what the tool does and the output fields. However, it doesn't mention common use cases, relationship to other pipeline tools, or notable behavior like default pagination and how scope filtering works. With 6 parameters and only 17% schema coverage, it could provide more context.

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 coverage is only 17% (only project has a description). The 'scope' parameter has an enum clearly showing filter options, and page/per_page are intuitive. However, include_retried and pipeline_id lack descriptions. The core required parameters (project and pipeline_id) are self-explanatory from the schema and context.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('jobs in a GitLab pipeline'), and includes the key fields (stages, status, runner, artifacts, failure reason). It distinguishes from list_pipeline and list_project_jobs, but doesn't explicitly contrast with list_project_jobs, which also lists jobs, making differentiation somewhat implicit.

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 for examining pipeline job details, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tool list_project_jobs. It also doesn't mention scenarios like filtering by scope or pagination use cases.

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