List queued pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what the list actually represents ('what is stuck, and behind what') and that it spans all repositories, going beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and scope; the second delivers the key differentiation against get_queue_info. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only list with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns conceptually, its scope, and how it relates to the closest sibling. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related instructions.

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 ('Lists'), a precise resource ('pipelines waiting in the server queue'), and an explicit scope ('across all repositories'). It also distinguishes itself from get_queue_info by framing this as the instance-wide view, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clear context: this is the instance-wide queue view, while get_queue_info covers the agent-side picture. It names the relevant alternative and implies the selection condition, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios beyond that one sibling.

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