cst_toolbox_list_pipelines_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides none. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects or permissions are involved, or any operational constraints. 'Alias' conveys no behavioral traits.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than useful conciseness, since it omits core purpose and behavior.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameter count is zero. Still, with no annotations the description should at least state the tool's function or behavior, not merely point to another tool. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke it from this description alone.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the scoring guidance the baseline is 4. The empty schema leaves nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 only says it is an alias of cst_runtime_list_pipelines_tool. It does not directly state what the tool does or what resource it operates on, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the sibling's name. This is closer to a tautological routing note than a clear verb+resource statement.

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 when-to-use guidance or conditions for selecting this alias over the referenced cst_runtime_list_pipelines_tool are provided. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection logic.

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