MR Pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about return fields but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements beyond the userCredentials parameter, or any other behavioral traits. Meets minimal expectations but does not exceed them.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose effectively. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though it could optionally mention pagination upfront.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is moderately complete. It hints at return fields but omits pagination behavior (though covered in schema). Adequate but relies heavily on structured fields.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., pagination for after and fetchAll). The tool description itself does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool gets CI/CD pipelines for a merge request, with specific return fields (status, duration, stages). It uniquely identifies the resource and verb, distinguishing it from siblings like get_pipeline_jobs.

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 when retrieving pipelines for an MR but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline_jobs or manage_pipeline. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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