MR Pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying what data is included ('status, duration, and stages'), but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs beyond the schema, or error conditions. With annotations doing heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate for the limited added value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without fluff. Every word earns its place: 'Get CI/CD pipelines for a merge request' establishes the action and target, and 'including status, duration, and stages' adds useful detail. No waste 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no schema provided), error handling context, or sibling differentiation. For a read-only tool with good annotations, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in usage guidance.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters (projectPath, iid, first, after, userCredentials). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'first' and 'after' control pagination) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is correct when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose: 'Get CI/CD pipelines for a merge request, including status, duration, and stages.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('CI/CD pipelines'), and scope ('for a merge request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_jobs or get_merge_requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., manage_pipeline), so it's not a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a merge request IID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_pipeline_jobs or get_merge_requests. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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