circleci_list_pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping and branch-filter behavior, but says nothing about pagination (page_token is a parameter) or what happens when both project_slug and org_slug are supplied.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the optional filter second. Nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could have said something about the returned pipeline list and how pagination works. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves pagination behavior and slug precedence unexplained.

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 five parameters are documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates the branch filter and the project/org scope but adds no format details or selection rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List CircleCI pipelines") and names the two scopes (project or organization), which matches the project_slug/org_slug parameters. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like circleci_get_pipeline or circleci_list_workflows, so it is clear but not distinguishing.

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?

"Optionally filter by branch" and "for a project or organization" imply the usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus circleci_get_pipeline or circleci_list_workflows, and no mention of which slug parameter to pick. 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.