deployment_pipeline_list

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the useful behavioral scoping 'accessible to the user' but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response shape; this is minor for a parameterless list, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, eight words, with the action, resource, and scope all front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the definition is nearly complete: an agent knows what will be listed and that the operation is safe. The only missing piece is a description of returned fields, but the verb 'List' plus no output schema still leaves enough for 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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not attempt to over-explain what does not exist.

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 names the exact verb ('List') and resource ('deployment pipelines'), with the scoping qualifier 'accessible to the user', which separates it from a detail retrieval sibling like deployment_pipeline_get. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear enumeration context but does not explicitly state when to choose it over deployment_pipeline_get or the stage/item list siblings. The sibling naming pattern implies the usage, so guidance is present only by inference.

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