List pipelines

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds only the project scoping context, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or output shape. This is adequate given the simple list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to defining the operation and scope.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It lacks details about return format or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and clear resource name, this is a minor gap.

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 has one required 'project' string with no description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by clarifying that pipelines are listed within a project, but it does not specify whether the value should be an ID, name, path, or other format. The added meaning is minimal but present.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List pipelines') and scopes it to a project, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that target other resources such as projects, teams, processes, and builds. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does at a glance.

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: if you need to list pipelines in a project, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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