Get pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful but modest context: that project_id is effectively mandatory (MissingParameterError) even though the schema marks it optional with a null default, and that the return is a wrapper plus a list of Pipeline models. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or how status/ref filtering interacts with max_pages.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the docstring-shaped 'Args: **kwargs' block wastes space on a parameter that does not exist in the schema, while the parameters that do exist go undiscussed.

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?

An 11-parameter listing tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs far more: filter semantics, pagination defaults (page=1, per_page=100), and when to use max_pages/total_pages. The description covers roughly one of eleven parameters, so an agent cannot call it correctly without guessing.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It explains only project_id; ref, status, page, per_page, max_pages, pipeline_id, variables, data, total_pages and api_parameters get no meaning at all, and the '**kwargs' framing is misleading given additionalProperties=false.

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+resource+scope: 'Get information about pipelines for a specific project', which distinguishes it from the singular gitlab_get_pipeline. However, it never contrasts with closely related siblings such as gitlab_get_pipelines_triggered_from_schedule or gitlab_ingest_pipelines, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_pipeline, gitlab_get_pipeline_jobs, or the GraphQL variants. The only usage-adjacent content is an error condition (missing project_id), which is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule.

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