List pipeline runs

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 only states the basic action and resource, but omits any mention of pagination (continuationToken), result limits, read-only nature, or potential side effects. The agent gains no insight into how the tool behaves beyond its trivial purpose.

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 short sentence, which is efficient in length and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly skeletal; while not a tautology, it lacks any additional structure or detail that would aid an 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 no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is drastically under-documented. The agent is left without essential context such as required parameters, pagination semantics, or expected return format. The description is far from sufficient for a 4-parameter tool with a required field.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. However, it does not mention pipelineId, top, continuationToken, or project at all. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema, leaving parameters completely unexplained.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'runs for one Azure Pipeline', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pipeline_run (singular) and list_pipelines (pipelines, not runs), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like get_pipeline_run or run_pipeline, nor any conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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