search_pipelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the compact result format with truncated fields, pagination mechanics (has_more, next_token, item_count), and the effect of include_field_names. It also notes limitations like truncated descriptions and limited tags, though it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured details on results and pagination. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting with braces and abbreviations (e.g., n=name) could be slightly clearer, and it's moderately dense without being wasteful.

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's complexity (search with many options), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, result format, pagination, and key parameters, but lacks full details on all filtering options and doesn't explicitly reference the output schema, though that may be adequate given structured data elsewhere.

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 description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining the include_field_names parameter's effect and implying search_params usage through examples in the compact results section. However, it doesn't detail all filtering options (e.g., query syntax, sort_field choices) beyond what the schema might encode, leaving some gaps.

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 tool searches for pipelines with filtering, sorting, and pagination. It specifies the resource (pipelines) and verb (search) with operational details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_capsules' or 'search_data_assets' beyond the resource name, missing explicit sibling comparison.

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 through pagination instructions and suggests using 'get_capsule(id)' for full details, providing some contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'search_capsules'), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially implied.

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