List pipelines

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 real behavioral context beyond that: passing page/page_size changes the response shape (paginated envelope with page, page_size, total, results), results are sorted by pipeline name, and name matching is case-insensitive substring. That is meaningful disclosure of how the call behaves.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement followed by the two operational tips. Little waste, though the pagination-field enumeration slightly overlaps with the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained; the description still adds the sorting and paging-shape behavior, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing, though an explicit pointer away from get_pipeline would round it out.

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 the account-id header is already documented in the schema. The description largely restates schema content (case-insensitive substring, pagination fields) with no extra syntax, defaults, or interaction notes, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pipelines) and adds a scope qualifier: the workspace the credential resolves to. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_pipeline or list_pipeline_runs, but the workspace/credential scoping is concrete enough for an agent to recognize it as the enumeration entry point.

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?

Gives prescriptive guidance on how to call the tool ('Always pass page and page_size') and how to narrow results with `name`, which is useful operational context. However, it never says when to choose this over alternatives such as get_pipeline for a single pipeline, so the when/when-not dimension is only implied.

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