get_merge_request_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation through 'Get' but does not disclose return format, pagination, failure behavior, or any CI/CD-specific quirks. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 simple one-parameter getter, this is minimally viable: an agent can select the tool and know the required argument. However, without an output schema or any detail about what pipeline information is returned or how it is structured, the description leaves some uncertainty about the response.

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 single parameter merge_request_iid is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high 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 identifies the specific resource ('CI/CD pipeline information') and the action ('Get') for a merge request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request_commits or get_merge_request_diffs even without naming them.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'for a merge request' and the pipeline-specific naming, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the other get_merge_request_* siblings, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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