getPipelineSteps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination, or error handling) beyond what annotations provide, so it meets the minimum baseline with annotations.

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, waste-free sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately concise, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., what fields each step contains) or any filtering/ordering options. For a simple list tool with strong annotations, it is adequate but leaves the agent without expectations for the response structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: each parameter (owner, repo, run_id) has a short description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning or format details, so it remains at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 jobs (steps)') and the resource ('of a CI run'), so an agent knows it retrieves multiple steps for a given run. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling getPipelineStep (which likely fetches a single step), so it lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPipelineStep or getPipelineStepLogs. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.

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