list_pipelines

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'task count and age' indicates computed metadata is returned, but the description does not disclose authorization needs, default scope of the list across namespaces, or edge-case behavior such as missing Tekton installation. It is minimally transparent but not detailed.

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, information-dense sentence that directly opens with the verb. Every word adds value: 'List' specifies the action, 'Tekton Pipelines' the resource, and 'task count and age' previews the output; there is no padding.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves crucial context missing: how cluster/namespace scope the results and whether this covers pipeline definitions as opposed to pipeline runs. With no annotations and two undocumented optional parameters, this one-liner is not enough for an agent to call the tool confidently in all contexts.

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?

Both parameters (cluster, namespace) have zero schema descriptions and the description does not mention them at all. There is no hint about how empty defaults behave or how to use them for filtering, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 the imperative 'List' with a clear resource, 'Tekton Pipelines', and adds output specifics ('task count and age'). This fully distinguishes it from related siblings like list_pipeline_runs or get_pipeline, so an agent can immediately identify the tool's purpose.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as list_pipeline_runs or start_pipeline_run. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mention of the sibling tools that handle pipeline runs, leaving the selection entirely to inference.

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