list_pipeline_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though strongly implied), nor does it cover pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the response beyond mentioning job status. This is a notable gap for an unannotated list tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with a parenthetical enumerating job types. No wasted words or redundancy.

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-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description mentions the returned status but omits pagination behavior, potential authentication needs, and how results are ordered or limited. It is minimally adequate given the rich schema, but not fully complete.

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 three parameters including the scope enum and project_id formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the resource name. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('jobs') with scope ('in a pipeline'), and clarifies that jobs include build, test, lint, and deploy types. It distinguishes itself from the single-job sibling get_job implicitly, but does not explicitly name or contrast with it. Clear enough for selection.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job or list_pipelines. The listing action is implied by the verb and pipeline scope, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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