ado_pipelines_list_runs

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing the vso.build PAT scope requirement, which is not available elsewhere, and characterizing results as 'recent' runs.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists the parameters and their roles, and the third gives the authorization requirement. Each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and auth. It does not describe return format or default project behavior, but those are reasonably inferable or documented in the schema, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter already documented. The description adds modest relational meaning by linking pipelineId to 'pipeline definition', statusFilter to 'status', and clarifying that top and continuationToken form a pagination mechanism — useful framing but not deep new semantics.

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: 'List recent pipeline runs' for an Azure DevOps project, with concrete filtering options. This inherently distinguishes it from siblings like ado_pipelines_list (lists definitions), ado_pipelines_get_run (single run), and ado_pipelines_trigger (starts runs).

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 conveys usage context — optional filters and pagination — but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this vs ado_pipelines_get_run for a specific run without inferring from the schema.

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