Pipeline Jobs

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

Annotations clearly mark the tool as readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent, aligning with the description's 'Get jobs' action. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (status, stage, etc.), which is not in the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose. Every word contributes to clarity with no 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 simplicity, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It could mention pagination, but schema already covers it. No output schema, but the description mitigates that.

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 each parameter described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only hints at output fields. Baseline score of 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 retrieves jobs for a specific pipeline and lists the included fields (status, stage, duration, retry/cancel info). This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request_pipelines or browse_repository.

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 implicitly indicates usage when job details for a pipeline are needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the specific language 'for a specific pipeline' provides adequate context for an agent.

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