list_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only collection operation, and 'with filtering options' hints at flexible querying. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, or any project-context requirements, leaving non-obvious behavior to the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the action, resource, scope, and capability with zero filler. It is concise while still giving an agent the essential operation and context.

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 list operation with a fully documented schema, the sentence is mostly sufficient. But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets no information about response shape, pagination behavior, or whether project_id is effectively required, and sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description adds only the generic phrase 'with filtering options' and contributes no semantic meaning beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('pipelines'), and scopes it to a GitLab project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, get, cancel, or retry a single pipeline.

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 intended use case is implied: listing pipelines for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_pipeline for a single pipeline or list_pipeline_jobs for jobs, and no when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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