List pipelines

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the fallback to source-branch pipelines when no pipeline is attributable to the PR, the semantics of the match field ('none' vs fallback), and that steps include UUIDs used by get_pipeline_step_log. This exceeds the safety profile and explains edge cases without contradicting 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 four dense sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary purpose, moves to scoping, then edge-case behavior, and finally a cross-reference to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds information; none are redundant or filler.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scoping variants, default behavior, fallback semantics, meaning of match and note, and the link to step logs. It's self-sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond that by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'with none of those it uses the PR for the current branch'), that commit accepts short or full SHAs, and that include_steps controls cost with a default true. This goes beyond simple parameter listings, so it earns above the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Bitbucket Pipelines builds'), and clarifies the output ('per-step pass/fail state'). It names the scoping parameters and even routes to a sibling tool (get_pipeline_step_log), so an agent can distinguish it from other pipeline-related tools without reading their schemas.

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?

It explicitly enumerates when to use each scoping parameter (build_number, commit, branch, pr_id), describes the default behavior when none are given (PR of current branch), and explains the fallback logic and the distinction between match: 'none' and a fallback. It also tells the agent to use get_pipeline_step_log when step logs are needed, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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