list_component_pipeline_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is useful, and the Konflux-component scoping adds context. However, it does not disclose filtering semantics, whether results span namespaces, or any permissions/limitations, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the purpose is simple, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain how cluster, namespace, and component_name interact, why namespace is required, or what the default values imply. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, more contextual guidance is needed.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (namespace, cluster, component_name). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations, leaving the agent to guess the role of each field, especially the optional cluster and component_name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Tekton PipelineRuns') and adds a scoping qualifier ('associated with Konflux components'), which differentiates it from the generic sibling list_pipeline_runs. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify what 'associated' means, so it stops short of a 5.

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: call this when you need PipelineRuns tied to Konflux components. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_pipeline_runs, no exclusions, and no context about namespace or component filters, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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