list_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists 'recent' pipeline runs, implying a time-based filter, but does not specify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, ordering). It also lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a read operation with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like ordering, time range for 'recent', or error cases. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for safe agent use.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'repo_slug' is a 'Repository slug' and 'limit' is the 'Maximum number of results (default: 10)', clarifying purpose and default values. However, it does not detail format constraints (e.g., slug syntax) or behavioral effects (e.g., how limit affects ordering), preventing a score of 5.

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 tool's purpose: 'List recent pipeline runs for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('pipeline runs'), and scope ('for a repository'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline' or 'list_pipeline_variables', which reduces the score from a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_pipeline' (for a specific pipeline) or 'list_pipeline_variables', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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