List pipeline runs

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is read-only ('Nothing is changed'), requires a specific secret key with the 'pipeline:read' scope, and explains the multi-row behavior per logical run. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint flags.

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 providing distinct value: the core action, result shape, and auth/read-only caveats. No redundant or filler language; the most important details are front-loaded.

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?

The description is largely sufficient for a list tool, given the annotations and schema already cover safety and pagination. It explains the row semantics and auth requirements. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about returned fields or pagination behavior could improve completeness, though not essential.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema covers 'limit' and 'cursor' with descriptions, but 'stage' and 'status' are only enum lists with no text; the description adds no meaning to these filters. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented params but does not.

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 action ('List') and resource ('pipeline runs'), adding scope with 'Recent engine activity for the Site, newest first.' It distinguishes from pipeline siblings like get_pipeline_status and trigger_pipeline_run by focusing on historical activity.

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 gives clear context about the result shape (newest first, one row per stage invocation), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using get_pipeline_status for a single run's status.

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