Get pipeline jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it names the return shape (a wrapper plus a list of Job models) and documents the failure modes MissingParameterError and ParameterError, which tells the agent that project_id and pipeline_id are effectively required despite the schema showing zero required parameters.

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 docstring is front-loaded with a clear summary line, and the Returns/Raises sections are cheap but useful. However, the Args block is largely filler — it misrepresents the flat 10-property schema as free-form kwargs and spends words on two parameters while omitting eight.

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 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the filtering and pagination knobs (scope, include_retried, page/per_page/max_pages). Describing the return wrapper and errors helps, but the majority of invoke-time decisions remain undocumented.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It only mentions project_id and pipeline_id as 'e.g.' examples of kwargs; page, per_page, max_pages, total_pages, scope, job_id, include_retried and job_variable_attributes are left completely undefined. The '**kwargs' framing is also misleading given the schema exposes explicit named properties.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with scope: jobs belonging to one pipeline inside one project. That differentiates it from the broad project-level job siblings without naming them explicitly. It stops short of routing the agent away from gitlab_get_project_jobs or gitlab_get_pipeline, so not 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many job/pipeline siblings. Usage is only inferable from the resource named in the first sentence. The Raises section hints at prerequisites (project_id and pipeline_id must be supplied) but does not frame this as a selection rule.

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