Lumino

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like cluster-wide queries, performance considerations for include_taskruns, and API fetch limits. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Find' implies reading).

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral context, organized parameter documentation, and return value specification. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The Args/Returns sections provide excellent organization without verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, cluster-wide search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (Returns section), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, performance considerations, and what to expect in return, making it fully self-contained for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets clear semantic meaning beyond just naming, including default values, purpose, and performance implications (e.g., 'default: False for performance' for include_taskruns).

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 specific action ('Find Tekton pipelines matching a pattern'), the resource ('Tekton pipelines'), and scope ('across all accessible namespaces'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_pipelineruns' by emphasizing pattern-based searching rather than simple listing.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Searches PipelineRuns/TaskRuns by name, labels, or annotations using cluster-wide queries'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The performance implication with 'include_taskruns' is helpful but not comprehensive guidance.

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