get_pipeline_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether it is a read operation, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a three-line parameter list. Every sentence provides value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return value (e.g., that it returns a list of job objects), pagination behavior (beyond per_page), and error conditions. A simple tool, but could be improved with a sentence about what the output contains.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: project_path is 'Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project')', pipeline_id is 'The ID of the pipeline', per_page is 'Number of results per page (max 100)'. This goes beyond the schema's type and title, though it could be more detailed (e.g., default value for per_page is already in schema).

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?

Description clearly states 'Get jobs for a specific pipeline', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pipelines (which lists pipelines) and get_job_log (which gets a single job's log).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that this retrieves all jobs within a pipeline, whereas get_job_log is for a single job's log. Sibling tools are mentioned but not contrasted.

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