List Pipeline Runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to emphasize read-only behavior. It adds the detail that status accepts comma-separated values and enumerates them, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination defaults or sorting, which are left to the schema. This is adequate given the annotation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and then provides the most critical parameter detail. There is no redundant wording, and 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?

Given the presence of a full output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions in the input schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and key filter. It doesn't mention pagination or time windows, but those are documented in the schema. The only minor gap is lack of sibling differentiation, which is covered under usage guidelines.

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 schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds specific value by enumerating the allowed status values (CREATED, RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, etc.), which the schema does not list. This extra semantic detail enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('pipeline runs') and mentions optional filters, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_run_status or cancel_pipeline_run. It lacks an explicit statement of the return type, but the title and phrasing are unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_pipeline_run_status for a single run or list_task_runs for tasks. It only describes the action without contextualizing selection criteria or exclusions.

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