Pipeline Jobs

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 mentioning the data fields returned, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'first' and 'after' parameters), rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what's in the schema.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes specific data fields without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what data is returned but doesn't explain pagination behavior, error cases, or how it differs from similar tools. With annotations covering safety, it meets minimum viability but lacks depth for optimal agent use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'projectPath' and 'pipelineIid' must correspond). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('jobs for a specific pipeline'), and specifies the data included ('status, stage, duration, and retry/cancel info'). It distinguishes from general job-fetching tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_pipelines' or 'manage_pipeline'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pipeline ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_pipelines' (which might fetch pipeline jobs via merge requests).

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