list_pipelines

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavioral expectations. It does disclose the key output trait—returning pipeline states (Running/Stopped/Error)—which is useful. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether permissions are required, or what happens with an invalid or missing database. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is minimal and directly useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It gives the resource, scope, state categories, and default parameter behavior. It could be improved by noting the absence of side effects, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the one parameter: database is the target database and defaults to the connection's configured database. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema's type/default fields and compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('List all') and a clear resource ('pipelines in a database'), and it differentiates itself from the more specific pipeline_status sibling by explicitly covering all pipelines and their current state. This is unambiguous and lets an agent understand the exact scope of the tool.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever you need the full set of pipelines and their states in a database. It does not explicitly contrast this with pipeline_status or other read-only siblings, nor does it give exclusions. The default-database note is helpful context but not a full usage guideline.

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