gitlab_list_pipelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns pipeline runs with status, lists available statuses with explanations, provides a detailed example response format, and mentions filtering capabilities. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, returns, use when, filtering, statuses, example, related tools). Each section earns its place, though the status list and example response are somewhat verbose for a description. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details (status explanations, example response), and sibling relationships. It doesn't cover all possible edge cases or pagination, but gives the agent enough to use the tool effectively.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions filtering 'By ref (branch), status' which aligns with the 'ref' parameter but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('CI/CD pipelines') with specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'gitlab_get_pipeline' for full details and 'gitlab_summarize_pipeline' for AI-friendly summaries, establishing its role as a listing tool.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' section provides clear context ('Checking CI status, finding failures'). It names specific alternative tools ('gitlab_get_pipeline', 'gitlab_summarize_pipeline') for different use cases, giving the agent explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives.

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