ncloud_list_pipelines

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to justify read-only behavior. It adds a little context by mentioning pagination and name search, but does not disclose default behavior (e.g., whether all pipelines are returned by default, max page size, or how pagination parameters interact). This is a simple list operation, so the gap is minor but present.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key options. There is no redundancy or wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully described optional parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks details about default pagination behavior or the response structure, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 each parameter (pageNo, pageSize, projectName) is already clearly described in the schema. The description's mention of 'optional pagination and name search' simply summarizes the existing schema information without adding new semantic detail, justifying the baseline score.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('SourcePipeline pipelines'), and key capabilities ('optional pagination and name search'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_get_pipeline (which retrieves a single pipeline) and ncloud_list_pipeline_history (which lists run history), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing SourcePipeline pipelines and mentions pagination and name search, which helps the agent choose when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the best examples.

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