List Pipeline Runs

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying pagination behavior (page_size, max_pages), a warning for fetching >10 pages, and default workspace behavior. This goes beyond 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 concise: a one-line summary, a well-organized parameter list, a returns line, and a note. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 output schema exists, the description's brief return statement suffices. It covers pagination limits and filters. However, it could mention error handling or behavior when workspace is unconfigured. Overall, it is mostly complete for a typical use case.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully documents each parameter in the 'Args' section, including allowed values for status and defaults for page_size/max_pages. This compensates completely for the schema gap, adding clear meaning.

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 clearly states 'List pipeline runs for a repository with pagination support', specifying the verb (list) and resource (pipeline runs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipeline_run (single run) and list_pipeline_caches (different resource) by focusing on runs with filtering and pagination.

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 implicitly suggests usage for listing runs with filters, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. For example, it does not mention that get_pipeline_run is for individual runs. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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