Get pipeline schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by naming the wrapper return shape and the specific error types (MissingParameterError when project_id is absent, ParameterError for invalid parameters). It omits pagination behavior even though page, per_page, max_pages, and total_pages are present in the schema.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, but the Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate is largely wasted: the kwargs line is misleading for a 125-parameter interface, and most of the space goes to return/error framing rather than usable parameter guidance.

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 tool with 125 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition is far too thin. The annotations do cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, and the description names the return wrapper and error conditions, but an agent still cannot infer which of the 100+ optional fields meaningfully filter pipeline schedules or how pagination works.

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 schema exposes 125 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. Instead it reduces the interface to '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id)' and names only project_id, leaving every other parameter — from active and cron to pipeline_schedule_id and pagination fields — undocumented in both places. That is a major compensation failure given the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get pipeline schedules') and adds a scope qualifier ('for a specific project'), so the agent knows this is a project-scoped listing operation. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule (singular) or gitlab_get_pipelines_triggered_from_schedule, leaving ambiguity about which retrieval variant to pick.

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 guidance, no statement of when to prefer the singular gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule, and no mention of alternatives like gitlab_get_pipelines_triggered_from_schedule or gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule. Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'specific project'.

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