List pipeline schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, project_id fallback, or return format). Since the tool is a straightforward list and the annotation provides the key safety profile, this is minimally sufficient but not enriched.

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 short phrase), but it is not a full sentence and lacks a verb. While it has no unnecessary words, it is under-specified and does not follow a clear 'verb + resource' structure. It is efficient but not sufficiently structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of scheduled pipelines). The current text only names the resource and doesn't even explicitly say it lists them. The parameter schema is rich, but the tool description leaves out essential return/usage context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Scheduled pipelines of a project' is a noun phrase that names the resource but lacks an explicit action verb. It doesn't clearly say 'lists' or 'returns', and it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'gitlab_list_pipelines'. The title 'List pipeline schedules' helps, but the description itself is vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gitlab_list_pipelines'. There are no context hints, prerequisites, or notes about project_id fallback behavior. It is a single statement with no usage direction.

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