list_pipelines

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

Without annotations, the description partially compensates by mentioning pagination via the 'after' cursor, automatic storage of results, and return of object IDs. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 includes a :param and :returns section, but also repeats information about object store usage. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema: it does not detail the structure of the returned pipeline list, only mentions 'list of pipelines or error message' and a preview. Expected properties of pipeline objects are missing.

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 only parameter 'after' is well-explained in the description: it's a cursor for pagination, with the response providing the next_cursor. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines type and default.

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 it retrieves a list of all pipelines in the workspace. The verb 'list' and resource 'pipelines' are specific, but it does not differentiate from other list tools among siblings, though the resource itself is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline or search_pipeline. The description only explains what it does, not the context for choosing it.

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