GitLab pipeline status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious aggregation trait: passing, skipped and manual jobs are counted, not listed, unless all=true. That's real behavior an agent couldn't infer from structured fields, though auth/rate-limit context is absent.

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, zero waste. The default behavior is front-loaded, then the mr override, then the output-shape caveat — a sensible priority order for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 a readOnly annotation, an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies what remains: scope selection and the counted-vs-listed distinction. Only slightly incomplete in not addressing the interaction between an explicit pipeline ID and branch.

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 100%, so every parameter including all defaults (cwd, repo, branch, pipeline, mr, all) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the branch/mr/all semantics rather than adding new constraints such as ID formats or precedence between branch and pipeline. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: report a GitLab pipeline's jobs as counts per status, plus the failed, running and pending jobs. That is concretely distinguishable from non-filtering list tools. It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling glab_pipeline_failure_summary, so it lands just below top marks.

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 states the default selection (current branch's latest pipeline), the alternate selection (pass mr for a merge request's head pipeline), and the condition that changes output shape (all=true). Clear context with no exclusions, but no guidance on when to prefer this over glab_pipeline_failure_summary.

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