Pipeline Jobs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying the types of information returned (status, stage, duration, retry/cancel info), which helps the agent understand what the tool provides beyond the annotation signals.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 rich schema (100% coverage) and clear annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output. However, it could be more complete by noting how this tool relates to similar pipeline tools (e.g., manage_pipeline) or by mentioning pagination behavior, though pagination is already documented in the schema parameters.

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 input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond listing some output fields, which is already a summary of what the tool returns rather than parameter specifics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides marginal extra value.

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, listing key attributes like status, stage, duration, and retry/cancel info. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_merge_request_pipelines which gets pipelines themselves.

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 for retrieving pipeline job details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like manage_pipeline. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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