List pipelines

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, summarized output, server-side filtering, and the critical cross-tool distinction between pipeline 'number' and id. These are genuinely useful for an agent deciding how to interpret results and chain calls.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the main action, the server-side filtering behavior, and the essential identifier warning. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has rich schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only/idempotent behavior. The description fills the remaining gaps: ordering, response summary intent, and the number-vs-id convention. Nothing an agent needs to call correctly and interpret results is missing.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter-specific detail; its 'number' note concerns output semantics and downstream tools rather than this tool's input parameters.

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 tool as listing a repository's pipelines, with ordering ('newest first') and a summarized shape, so an agent can distinguish it from detail or mutation tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_queued_pipelines or get_pipeline_feed, but the repository-scoped framing provides enough clarity.

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 gives practical context: it tells the agent that filters are handled server-side and that the returned 'number' field is what other pipeline tools expect, which helps route follow-up calls. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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