List Pipeline Runs

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the accepted status vocabulary, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or default time-window scoping — details an agent listing runs would want.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the enum list trailing where it belongs. Slightly redundant with the schema's own enum listing, which is its only real waste.

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 an output schema present to cover return values, 100% schema coverage on all nine parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 every parameter including page, page_size, time windows, and the account-id header is already documented in the schema. The description's status enumeration largely restates what the schema's status description already provides, adding no new syntax or semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pipeline runs') plus the presence of optional filters, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like list_task_runs, list_task_runs_for_pipeline_run, or get_pipeline_run_status.

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 phrase 'with optional filters' implies a context but never states when to use this tool versus the sibling run-listing or status tools. No when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given, so routing must be inferred from the name alone.

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