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. It does not disclose pagination behavior (page/per_page defaults), the fact that results can be filtered by status or ref, or any other non-obvious behavior. 'List' implies read-only, but the description is too sparse to be fully transparent.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easily scannable, making it effective for quick understanding.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose but omits key contextual details like filtering options and pagination defaults. The output schema and parameter defaults partially compensate, but the lack of any parameter descriptions and usage alternatives leaves gaps for an agent determining correct 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 0%, and the description only clarifies that the tool is scoped to a project. It does not explain the meaning of 'ref', 'status', 'page', or 'per_page' beyond what their names imply. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List pipelines for a project' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource (pipelines) and scope (project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline' by indicating a list operation rather than a single-item fetch.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'get_pipeline' should be used for a single pipeline, nor does it explain the role of filters like status or ref. The agent is left without comparative context.

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