List pipeline runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing is limited to 'recent' runs and includes state/result, but says nothing about how far back 'recent' reaches, ordering, or the interaction with the schema's policy.maxResults cap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope come first and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return contract, but it only gestures at 'state and result'. Given a simple three-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is the minimum viable level rather than complete.

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 67%: 'project' and 'top' are documented in the schema, but 'pipelineId' has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it contributes nothing toward closing that gap or clarifying the default/cap behavior of 'top'.

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 ... runs of a pipeline') plus the payload shape ('state and result'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby 'list_pipelines' sibling, which lists pipelines rather than runs, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that the pipeline must exist or which project scope is required), and no mention of alternatives such as list_pipelines. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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