pipeline_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no significant behavioral disclosure beyond the basic listing action, though the word 'all' does convey completeness of the returned set. It doesn't mention pagination, response shape, permissions, or rate limits, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 operation with one well-described parameter and safety annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that the response format is not described—no output schema exists—though the tool name strongly implies a list is returned. A note about metadata fields or pagination would add value but isn't essential.

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 already documents workspaceId as 'The workspace ID' with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat the parameter. The phrase 'in a workspace' loosely references the parameter but adds no extra meaning about format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID, meriting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('data pipelines'), and scopes it to a workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipeline_get, pipeline_list_runs, and pipeline_list_schedules, as well as other *_list tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., pipeline_get for a single pipeline, pipeline_list_runs for runs). The intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer selection from the name and description alone.

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