list_pipeline_jobs_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states 'List jobs', implying a read operation, but it doesn't mention if it returns a paginated list, what happens when no jobs match, or any rate limits. With an output schema present and no annotations, the description is too brief to fully inform the agent.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary details, which is efficient, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema and detailed parameter schema, the description could suffice, but it lacks guidance on usage and behavior. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully complete for an AI agent to understand all nuances (e.g., pagination, scope filtering highlights).

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 description covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including default values and scope options. The description doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'jobs for a CI/CD pipeline'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pipelines_tool and get_pipeline_tool by focusing on jobs. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., all jobs in the pipeline) compared to related tools like get_job_log_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it lists jobs within a pipeline, while get_job_log_tool is for fetching a specific job's log, or that scope filtering is available. This is a missed opportunity for clearer differentiation.

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