list_pipelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, specific return fields (IDs, statuses, branch/tag names, creation dates), and prerequisites. However, it does not mention error conditions or auth requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, return fields, and prerequisite/alternative. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, prerequisites, and a pointer to the related tool. Even without an output schema or annotations, it gives an agent sufficient context to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about the meaning of owner, project, page, or size beyond the schema, only referencing pagination generically.

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 'List CI/CD pipelines of a GitFlic project with pagination', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'list_pipeline_jobs' by directing users there for individual jobs.

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 states a clear prerequisite: 'Requires .gitflic-ci.yaml and a registered runner in the project', telling when the tool is usable. It also provides an explicit alternative, 'Use list_pipeline_jobs to see individual jobs within a pipeline', guiding tool selection.

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