Lumino

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation as a list function, which implies read-only behavior, and specifies sorting and scoping ('across all accessible namespaces'), adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with sorting and scoping), no annotations, and an output schema that details the return structure, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, but could improve by addressing usage guidelines and behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('Max PipelineRuns to retrieve') and default value, which is not covered in the schema (0% description coverage). Since there is only one parameter, the description compensates well, though it could provide more context on valid ranges or constraints.

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 action ('List recent Tekton PipelineRuns'), resource ('PipelineRuns'), scope ('across all accessible namespaces'), and sorting criteria ('sorted by start time'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_pipelineruns' by specifying the 'recent' and 'sorted' aspects, providing specific differentiation.

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 for retrieving recent PipelineRuns sorted by start time, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pipelineruns' or 'get_tekton_pipeline_runs_status'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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