list_pipeline_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a list with filtering, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's paginated (implied by 'perPage' and 'page' parameters but not confirmed), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format. For a read operation with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of pipeline run instances') and includes key feature ('with filtering options'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from capabilities.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address output structure, pagination behavior, error cases, or authentication needs. For a list operation with multiple filters, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filtering options', which aligns with parameters like 'status', 'triggerMode', and time filters, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get a list') and resource ('pipeline run instances'), and mentions filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pipeline_run' (singular) and 'list_pipelines' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_pipeline_job_historys' or 'get_latest_pipeline_run', which are related but not identical. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization and pipeline IDs), compare to siblings like 'get_pipeline_run' (for a single run) or 'list_pipeline_job_historys' (for job-level details), or specify contexts where filtering is essential. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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