get-log-pipelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists all pipelines and returns specific fields (names, filters, processors, enabled status). It does not mention side effects or authorization, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient.

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 consists of four sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly redundant in the last sentence ('Essential for understanding...'), but overall concise.

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 complete for a zero-parameter list tool. It covers the return value ('pipeline names, filters, processors, and enabled status') and provides context for when it's essential. No output schema exists, but the description fills the 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 'List all log processing pipelines' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on pipelines, not indexes or metrics, and provides example queries like 'how are logs being processed'.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for ...' which gives clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings like get-log-indexes.

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