List Power Platform pipelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important trait: 'Read-only,' plus that it runs 'pac pipeline list' under the active pac auth profile, which tells the agent what credentials and side effects to expect. It stops short of describing output volume, pagination, or failure behavior for a missing pipeline name.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its two modes, then the safety trait and execution context. No filler and nothing buried.

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 zero-required-param, read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the two invocation modes, safety, and the auth context. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the return shape is only loosely implied, and it does not connect to cs_deploy_pipeline or cs_job_status for the background path.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the mapping that supplying a pipeline name switches to stage-listing mode; it adds nothing about cwd, profile, background, environment, or timeoutSeconds beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (pipelines) plus two distinct scopes: pipelines that can deploy from an environment, or the stages of a single pipeline. Clear enough to act on, but it never names the closely related sibling cs_deploy_pipeline, so the agent must infer the list-vs-deploy relationship on its own.

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 two modes imply when to call it (discover deployable pipelines, or inspect one pipeline's stages), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or 'use X instead' guidance relative to cs_deploy_pipeline or cs_list_environments. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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