List GitLab pipelines

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

Annotations already declare this as safe read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to re-explain safety. It adds the scope (project pipelines) but tells nothing about pagination, default ordering, or that it returns a list of pipeline objects. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction).

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 sentence, 11 words, direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described. The tool is a standard list operation; combined with the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description adequately covers typical usage. It doesn't mention pagination details, but these are in the schema. Overall, adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 8% (only the 'project' param has a description). The description adds general filter categories (status, ref, source, user, update time), which loosely map to some params, but it doesn't explain the semantics of many others (page, per_page, sort, order_by, sha, name, etc.). For a tool with 13 params, this is insufficient compensation.

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 ('project pipelines'), with explicit filter dimensions (status, ref, source, user, update time). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipeline, list_pipeline_jobs, and list_merge_requests_pipelines.

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 phrase 'by status, ref, source, user, or update time' implicitly tells when to use the tool (when you need filtered pipeline listings), but it does not explain when not to use it, such as when to prefer list_merge_requests_pipelines for MR pipelines or get_pipeline for a single pipeline. No explicit alternatives are named.

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