deployment_pipeline_list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds the 'deployment history' context, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or the shape of the returned operation list.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It communicates what the tool returns conceptually, though additional detail about the operation list contents would improve it.

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?

The schema describes pipelineId as 'The deployment pipeline ID' and coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not go 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 clearly identifies the action (list operations), the resource (deployment pipeline), and scopes the result as deployment history. It is distinguishable from the sibling deployment_pipeline_get_operation by the list vs. get contrast, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 phrase 'deployment history' implies when this tool should be used, but the description provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer from sibling names that get_operation is for individual operations.

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