list_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided; the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. Listing is inherently non-destructive, but explicit reassurance would improve transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the one-line purpose, two parameter explanations, and a returns line. No redundant information.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema (context indicates its existence), the description covers parameter behavior and expected return table. However, it does not specify default behavior (e.g., lists all pipelines if no filters) or mention pagination limits.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: tag for filtering by tag, scope for filtering by scope with valid values ('workspace', 'global', ''), and the effect of empty values ('show all'). This compensates completely.

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 'List all saved pipeline configurations.' The verb 'list' and resource 'saved pipeline configurations' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_pipeline or save_pipeline by focusing on listing.

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 clear filtering guidance with tag and scope parameters, explaining when to use each. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_pipeline_history) or state when not to use this tool.

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