gitlab_project_pipelines

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful routing note about MR pipelines and mentions optional filters, but does not disclose anything about pagination, rate limits, or result ordering beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core list/filter behavior is front-loaded, followed by the sibling-routing note.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential purpose, filters, and MR pipeline alternative. It omits pagination guidance, but the schema and output schema already carry that detail, so it is largely complete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents project, ref, page, and perPage. The description only confirms that ref and status act as filters; it adds no status enum values or format details beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a project's pipelines') and immediately narrows scope with optional ref/status filters. It also differentiates from the sibling gitlab_mr_pipelines by routing merge-request pipelines there.

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?

It names an explicit alternative for MR pipelines ('a merge request's own pipelines come from gitlab_mr_pipelines'), which is clear routing guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus gitlab_pipeline_jobs or when to prefer ref vs status filtering, leaving some context to inference.

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