pipelines_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful constraints: results are limited to accessible pipelines (permission scoping) and exclude items in the current upstream. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the scope caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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 three-optional-parameter read-only list with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what is returned (pipelines plus their stages) and what is omitted. Only result ordering and the effect of include_inactive are left undescribed, which is a minor gap.

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%, with page, limit and include_inactive all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantics about include_inactive or pagination strategy, but the 'accessible pipelines' phrasing does imply the visibility scope the list obeys.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lista pipelines acessíveis e suas etapas'), and the second sentence scopes the content by excluding items in the current upstream. It implicitly separates itself from pipeline_items_list, but never names pipeline_get or other siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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: an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before drilling into pipeline_get or pipeline_items_list. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over those siblings, nor on prerequisites or when to set include_inactive.

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