list_pipeline_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: sort order ('newest first'), filter values, limit bounds, and the job-name naming convention. However, it omits details on empty-result behavior, exact versus partial matching for request_id, and pagination beyond the limit, leaving some behavior unspecified.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core verb, object, and ordering; the second packs filters, defaults, and limits efficiently. The minor casing inconsistency in the status list does not detract from the concise structure.

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 read-only list tool with optional filters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: filters, defaults, limits, ordering, and naming. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling get_* tools and nuanced pagination behavior, but these are minor gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so for all three parameters: limit's default/max, status's allowed values, and request_id's relationship to the job-name format. It does not fully specify request_id matching semantics, but the provided context adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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'), a clear resource ('pipeline jobs'), and a distinguishing ordering trait ('newest first'). It differentiates from singular sibling tools like get_pipeline_job and get_pipeline_job_config by clearly indicating this is the bulk-listing operation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pipeline_job or get_pipeline_log. The description only lists optional filters; it does not explain scenarios that favor this tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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