List Pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or required permissions. The description is redundant with the name and annotations, failing to explain what happens beyond the obvious.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover pagination (page/per_page), filtering options (status, ref, source), or the required project_id. The agent lacks context for correct invocation.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the overall description does not explain any parameter meaning. For example, 'ref', 'source', 'status' are left to inference, requiring the agent to guess their usage and format.

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' and resource 'pipelines for a project', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools (e.g., gitlab_list_issues) beyond the resource name, missing an opportunity to specify scope like 'of a GitLab project'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include gitlab_get_pipeline (single pipeline) and gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs, but the description does not contrast these or specify that this is for listing pipelines, not a single one.

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