listPipelineRuns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about supported filters (status, branch, event) and pagination (page/per_page), which is valuable but not extensive; it does not describe the response shape or any rate limits, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 two compact sentences. The first states the core purpose and analog; the second lists filters and pagination. There is zero filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 list operation with 7 parameters but no output schema, the description provides enough context: the resource, filters, and pagination. It does not specify return format, but the tool name and analog ('CI runs') imply a list, and sibling getPipelineRun covers single-run details. The main missing piece is explicit mention of default values or ordering, which is not critical for basic invocation.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description reiterates the filters and pagination, matching the schema, but adds no new semantic detail (e.g., default page size, format of status enum). It meets the baseline for full schema coverage without compensation.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CI runs') with an analog ('GitVerse Actions, Bitbucket Pipelines analog'), making its purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools like getPipelineRun (single run) and runPipeline (trigger) by focusing on listing all runs, and mentions filters and pagination, reinforcing its distinct role.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to list CI runs, with optional filters (status, branch, event) and pagination. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like getPipelineRun for a single run, but the context is clear. It lacks a direct 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context for an agent to infer.

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