list_pipelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the filter axes: no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, default page size, or authorization scope. Enum statuses are visible in the schema, so the description adds no behavioral context.

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 with the resource name and filter axes front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter listing tool, but it is not padded or poorly structured.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more weight than it does — return shape is not explained, though that is expected without an output schema, and pagination defaults are covered by the schema. For a filtered-list tool it is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral questions open.

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 all six parameters are already well documented (including enum values, defaults, and the project_id dual format). The description restates the filter dimensions already covered by the schema, adding no syntax or format detail, so the 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 (List) and resource (CI/CD pipelines) plus the available filter dimensions, which lets an agent know exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_pipeline or list_pipeline_jobs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 names possible filters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_pipeline (single pipeline), create_pipeline, or list_pipeline_jobs. No prerequisites, no exclusion criteria, no alternative routing.

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