list_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('A resposta diz se há mais páginas') and that ref filtering happens on the API, but does not mention permissions, error cases, or explicitly state that it is a safe/non-mutating operation. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 (three sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then a pagination note. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 5-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. It explains the tool's role relative to siblings and mentions pagination, but does not describe the response shape or error scenarios, which are relevant given no output schema exists.

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 parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the purpose of filters or pagination defaults. It relies entirely on the schema, which is sufficient but not enhanced.

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 lists recent pipelines for a project with optional filters, and explicitly differentiates from get_mr_pipeline. The verb 'list' and resource 'pipelines' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to compare MR pipeline with branch history) and when not to (use get_mr_pipeline for MR-specific CI state). It names the alternative directly, giving clear context for selection.

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