gitlab_list_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the verb and GET endpoint; it does not mention read-only semantics, pagination defaults, result shape, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 with no filler, and the core action and endpoint are front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices important detail captured as gaps in the other dimensions.

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 five-parameter list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits filter semantics, pagination behavior, and return-value expectations, providing the minimum needed to identify the tool but not enough to invoke it correctly for non-default cases.

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 only 20%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented ref, status, page, and perPage parameters. It does not; it only references the endpoint path. Only projectId has a schema description, leaving the other four parameters without meaningful semantics in either the schema or the description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Lists pipelines') and includes the REST endpoint, so an agent can tell this is a collection-level listing rather than a single-pipeline fetch. It clearly contrasts with siblings like gitlab_get_pipeline and gitlab_get_pipeline_jobs, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_pipeline or gitlab_get_pipeline_jobs. The intended context is only inferable from the tool name and sibling list, not from the description itself.

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