pipeline_items_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: pagination is applied locally because the upstream returns the entire collection, which explains why paging is consistent and why large pipelines may be costly. It does not describe the shape or size of returned items.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose comes first and the non-obvious pagination caveat follows. Every sentence carries information the agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 five-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate. It still leaves open how items are ordered, what fields each item carries, and how this differs from sibling tools like pipeline_get, which an agent selecting among eleven siblings would benefit from knowing.

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 page, limit, status, stage_id and pipeline_id are all documented in the schema. The description only adds that the pagination parameters operate locally rather than upstream, which is a marginal but real addition. 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 ("Lista itens de um pipeline"), which tells an agent exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from pipeline_get or pipelines_list, so the agent must infer that this is the collection-level tool for pipeline items.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required pipeline_id and the pagination note make it evident this is the way to enumerate items of a given pipeline. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer pipeline_get or pipelines_list instead, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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