list_pipeline_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but does not confirm that it is non-destructive, discuss permissions, rate limits, or whether the results are sorted or paginated. The minimal info falls short of what an agent needs to safely invoke the tool.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's function.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not indicate that 'project_id' and 'pipeline_id' are essential for scoping the list (even though not marked required). With no output schema, the agent has no idea about the return structure (e.g., array of job objects). The description is too brief to fully equip an agent for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all six parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no further semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 'List jobs for a specific pipeline' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (jobs) with a scope (specific pipeline). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' which lists pipelines, not jobs. However, it does not elaborate on what 'jobs' means in context (e.g., CI/CD jobs), missing opportunity for extra clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention that 'get_job' is for retrieving a single job's details, or that 'cancel_job' is for mutating job state. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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