smart_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'intelligently search' and natural language processing, which hints at smart behavior, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The bracketed '[Pipeline Management]' provides quick context, and the example time references add clarity without verbosity.

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 complexity of a search tool with six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage distinctions from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without guessing about its behavior or results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 'natural language time references' feature for the 'timeReference' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional context for other parameters like 'organizationId' or 'statusList'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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's purpose: 'Intelligently search pipelines with natural language time references.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('pipelines'), and key capability ('natural language time references'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'search_workitems' beyond mentioning the natural language feature.

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 minimal usage guidance, only implying to use it when you need to search pipelines with natural language time references. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pipelines' or 'search_workitems', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is too vague for effective tool selection.

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