Get pipeline schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that project_id is effectively required (MissingParameterError) and that invalid params raise ParameterError, but says nothing about pagination, filtering or the wrapper response shape beyond a one-line note.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, but the Args/Returns/Raises block is autogenerated boilerplate, and '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id)' is filler that adds little.

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 126-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is far too sparse: filtering, pagination and sorting parameters go undocumented, and the only return detail is that a wrapper contains PipelineSchedule models. It does cover the required project_id and error behavior, which keeps it above a 1.

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% and the schema lists 126 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains project_id (and vaguely '**kwargs'), leaving cron, active, ref, per_page, max_pages and 120 others completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Get pipeline schedules') plus scope ('for a specific project'), which separates it from the singular gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule and from gitlab_get_pipelines_triggered_from_schedule. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so no differentiation credit at level 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 when-to-use guidance beyond the phrase 'for a specific project'. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule (single schedule) or gitlab_get_pipelines_triggered_from_schedule.

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