search-ci-pipelines

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true) and does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as authentication needs or rate limits. The bar is lower due to annotations, but the description could offer more.

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 covers the key elements: action, resource, and method. It is front-loaded and contains no wasteful words, though it could be slightly more descriptive about return format.

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?

The description provides minimal context for a search tool with no output schema. It mentions the type of events (builds, deploys), but does not explain expected return format, typical use cases, or behavior with empty results. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already provides good detail for each parameter, so the description is not needed to compensate.

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 action (search), the resource (CI/CD pipeline events), and the method (query filtering). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search-ci-tests and search-logs by specifying pipeline events.

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 searching CI/CD pipeline events with query filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search-ci-tests or search-logs. No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided.

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