list_pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior detail (project scoping and wildcard matching in name_filter) but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or behavior when name_filter matches nothing.

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 compact clause with no filler, and the wildcard hint is placed where it is needed. It is slightly telegraphic — a fragment rather than a sentence — but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, for a two-parameter listing tool the unresolved project default and the lack of any run-vs-definition routing guidance leave real gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does explain name_filter's wildcard syntax, which is genuinely additive. However, the project parameter is left undefined — with default null, it is unclear whether an omitted value means the default project or all projects.

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?

Names the resource and disambiguates the terminology ("Pipelines (build definitions) of a project"), which lets an agent distinguish this from list_pipeline_runs and get_pipeline_log. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and there is no explicit contrast with the run-oriented sibling.

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 versus list_pipeline_runs or get_pipeline_run; the agent must infer that this returns definitions rather than executions. No prerequisites, no mention of default behavior when project is omitted.

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