List Pipelines

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior or rate limiting.

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?

A single sentence is concise but overly minimal. It could be restructured to include key filter options (e.g., by status, ref) without becoming verbose, improving usability.

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?

Despite having 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no information about available filters, sorting, pagination, or return structure. The tool's complexity demands a more complete description to enable correct invocation.

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 the description does not explain any of the 14 parameters (e.g., ref, sha, status, sort). Parameters like 'updated_after' and 'updated_before' need format guidance. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List pipelines for a project.' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (pipelines for a project), distinguishing it from tools like gitlab_get_pipeline (single pipeline) or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs (jobs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related list tools like gitlab_list_merge_request_pipelines.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_pipeline (for a single pipeline) or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs (for jobs within a pipeline). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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