ado_pipelines_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only and exploratory nature. The description adds the requirement 'Requires vso.build PAT scope,' which is a critical authentication constraint not present in annotations, and it specifies the exact fields returned. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing return fields, and noting the auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, which it does by listing fields. It also covers the auth requirement. Pagination behavior is implied through the 'top' parameter in the schema. Minor gaps like error handling or project-not-found behavior are not covered, but for a read-only, open-world listing tool, the description is quite complete.

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 100%, so both parameters (top and project) are fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline score for full 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 clearly states the tool lists pipeline definitions for an Azure DevOps project, which is a specific verb-resource combo. It also enumerates returned fields (id, name, folder, revision, URLs) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like ado_pipelines_list_runs by the 'definitions' vs 'runs' distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to sibling tools. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context to be inferred from the name and schema.

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