List pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'CI pipelines with status and ref filters', providing light context about the resource and filtering scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, defaults, or other runtime traits.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool is complex with 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or pagination semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The minimal description leaves the agent to infer important behaviors like all_pages handling and response structure, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 62% schema description coverage, many parameters are documented in the schema, but the description itself only mentions status and ref filters. It does not clarify parameters like `sha`, `sort`, or `updated_after` that lack schema descriptions, nor does it add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), resource ('pipelines'), and scope ('CI pipelines'), with mention of status and ref filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_pipeline (single pipeline) and gitlab_list_jobs (jobs), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer gitlab_get_pipeline for a single pipeline or gitlab_list_jobs for jobs within a pipeline. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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