list_pipelines

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

Without annotations, the description lacks any behavioral disclosure such as read-only nature, side effects, or return format. It does not indicate that the tool is safe or non-destructive, leaving the agent uninformed.

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?

At only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits critical information about scope, output, and behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 does not explain what information is returned for each pipeline definition or the default output format. Given the absence of an output schema, this gap makes the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add further meaning. The description adds no value beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'all pipeline definitions,' making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_pipeline_status' which targets specific pipelines, and 'create_pipeline' which creates new ones.

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. For example, there is no mention that this is for overview purposes or that 'get_pipeline_status' should be used for a single pipeline's details.

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