pipelines_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('View') and output format option ('optional JSON output format'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a list operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured bullet-like list of use cases and a final sentence on output format. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 low complexity (list operation, 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output format, but lacks behavioral details like pagination or auth requirements. It's sufficient for basic use but could be enhanced with more operational context.

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 the single parameter 'json', which is documented in the schema as 'Output in json format'. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional JSON output format', reinforcing but not expanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('View') and resource ('available Heroku pipelines'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'pipelines_create' (creation) and 'pipelines_info' (detailed info) by focusing on listing/visibility. It explicitly lists four use cases that clarify the scope beyond just 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 explicit when-to-use guidance with four numbered scenarios (e.g., 'List accessible pipelines', 'Check pipeline ownership'), clearly differentiating from siblings like 'pipelines_info' (for detailed config) and 'list_apps' (for apps not pipelines). It directly addresses the agent's decision-making context.

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