Get pipelines triggered from schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the response wrapper containing Pipeline models and the error conditions for missing or invalid parameters, but does not mention pagination behavior despite page/per_page 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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, and the Returns/Raises sections add relevant information. However, the Args section uses a vague **kwargs catch-all that does not meaningfully describe the enormous parameter surface.

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 126 schema parameters at 0% description coverage and no output schema, the definition is far from complete. It clarifies the required identifiers and return wrapper, but an agent still has no guidance for the vast majority of accepted parameters or pagination controls.

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 126 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to do so. It names only project_id and pipeline_schedule_id via **kwargs examples and the error section, leaving the other 124 parameters completely undocumented.

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: retrieving pipelines triggered by a particular pipeline schedule. It is distinguishable from generic pipeline-listing or schedule-detail siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to route against.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The Raises section implies project_id and pipeline_schedule_id are necessary, but there is no explanation of when this tool is preferable to gitlab_get_pipelines or gitlab_get_pipeline_schedules.

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