gitlab_mr_pipelines

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuine extra context: the MR-scoped nature and the merge-blocking behavior of GitLab 11.3 when a pipeline is running or failed. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, though the schema/output schema cover those.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose leads, and the pre-merge rationale follows. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what the tool returns (MR pipelines) and why it matters. It is complete for calling the tool correctly, missing only minor pagination framing that the schema already supplies.

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 100%, so iid, project, page, and perPage are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pipelines') scoped to 'this merge request'. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_project_pipelines (project-wide) and gitlab_pipeline_jobs (job-level detail).

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use signal: 'Read before merging', plus the reason (11.3 refuses the merge while one is running or failed). It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the pre-merge context is unambiguous.

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