list_pipelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'cursor-paginated', which indicates pagination behavior, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it disclose any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, followed by a parenthetical that captures the key pagination trait. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent that the tool lists pipelines and that results are paginated. It does not describe the return structure, which would be useful but is not mandatory without an output schema. Overall, an agent can invoke this tool correctly based on the description and schema alone.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: cursor is described as an opaque token from prior pages, and page_size has minimum, maximum, and default. The description adds only the 'cursor-paginated' phrase, which is already implied by the schema's cursor field. There is no additional meaning provided in the tool description, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'hiring pipelines', and the parenthetical 'cursor-paginated' adds a concrete behavior. It distinguishes from sibling get_pipeline by being plural, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The resource is specific enough to avoid confusion with other list_* tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline. There is no mention of typical use cases, no exclusions, and no context about when pagination is necessary. The only clue is the verb 'List', which implicitly suggests using it to retrieve multiple pipelines, but no explicit direction is given.

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