list_pipeline_versions

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

The description discloses that the output is automatically stored, returns a formatted preview with an object ID, and suggests using object store tools to view nested properties. These are useful behavioral traits beyond what annotations (none) provide. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but the pagination and error message mentions add transparency.

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 slightly verbose with generic statements like 'The output is automatically stored and can be referenced in other functions' and 'Use the object store tools...' which may be common across tools. The core purpose and parameters are clear, but it could be more concise by removing these repeated patterns.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, sorting order, pagination, and output format (object ID). It mentions error message but lacks details on page size or permission requirements. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a list tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: pipeline_name as 'Name of the pipeline' and after as 'Cursor (version_id UUID) to fetch the next page of results.' It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions, fully covering the required semantics.

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 explicitly states 'Lists all versions of a pipeline, ordered by version number descending (newest first).' This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_version (single version) and create_pipeline_version (creation).

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 mentions ordering and pagination via the 'after' cursor, which implies typical usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_pipeline_version or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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