List configured pipelines

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read access. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all groups') and optional filtering, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or pagination. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in extra 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently adds optional filtering in a second sentence. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool, with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint), an output schema (implying return values are documented), and low complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, resource, and filtering option, though it could benefit from more parameter details or sibling differentiation to be fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the schema doesn't explain parameters. The description mentions pipeline_id for filtering, adding some meaning, but doesn't cover the server parameter or provide details like format or constraints. It partially compensates but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 ('Return JSON describing') and resource ('configured Stream and Edge pipelines in all groups'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_groups or list_sources, which list other resource types, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by pipeline_id, suggesting when to use this tool for specific vs. all pipelines. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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