list_pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('JSON array of pipeline configuration objects with name, stages, triggers, and parameters'), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, zero redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded before usage and return-value details. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return contents, compensating for the absence of an output schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter ('application') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it as 'Application name as registered in Spinnaker'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pipeline configurations') scoped to a Spinnaker application. The phrase 'before triggering or inspecting a specific one' implicitly distinguishes it from get_pipeline, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Use this to discover available pipelines before triggering or inspecting a specific one.' That frames the discovery step and points at the follow-up tool (get_pipeline / trigger_pipeline) without naming them outright, so it is clear but not a fully explicit when/when-not with named alternatives.

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