List Pipeline Trigger Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a genuinely non-obvious behavior: token values are redacted ('never returned'), which preempts an agent trying to fetch a secret here. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite paginated parameters, and no permission or scoping requirements are mentioned.

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 zero filler, the core behavior front-loaded and the redaction caveat immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The description partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields, which is valuable. But for a three-parameter list tool with no parameter documentation and no output schema, it omits pagination and project scoping, so an agent cannot call it confidently without reading the schema.

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% and none of the three parameters (project_id, page, per_page) are explained in the description. The only hint is that results relate to a project, leaving pagination semantics and whether project_id is required entirely undocumented.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') plus a specific resource ('pipeline trigger tokens') and enumerates the fields surfaced (description, owner, last_used). It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it with list_pipeline_jobs or get_pipeline_trigger.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like get_pipeline_trigger (single token), create_pipeline_trigger, and trigger_pipeline available, the description never states that this is the enumeration entry point nor when to prefer it over those alternatives.

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