list_pipeline_runs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or any side effects. The mention of returned fields (name, status, duration, age) is more about output than behavior, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is too terse to be effective, omitting essential details about parameters and usage. The conciseness is not balanced with completeness, making it minimally helpful rather than efficiently informative.

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, the description does not cover the optional parameters (cluster, namespace, label_selector) or provide selection criteria among sibling tools. For a listing tool with several optional filters, this is a significant gap. The description gives only the core purpose, leaving behavioral and parameter context empty.

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 schema has 3 parameters (cluster, namespace, label_selector) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying the purpose or format of these parameters, but it remains silent. An agent has no guidance on how to use or interpret these fields.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Tekton PipelineRuns'), and enumerates the fields included in the output (pipeline name, status, duration, age). It distinguishes from siblings like list_pipelines (which lists definitions) and get_pipeline_run (which retrieves a single run) by focusing on a list of runs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_component_pipeline_runs, which could cause minor ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any filters (cluster, namespace, label_selector) or explain when to use it instead of related tools like cancel_pipeline_run or list_task_runs. There is no context or exclusionary language to help an agent choose this tool.

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