crm_get_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authentication requirements, or return characteristics beyond the summary. The description is adequate but minimal, offering no extra behavioral context.

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, tightly constructed sentence that leads with the action and resource, includes the key detail ('values per stage'), and contains no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It conveys what the tool returns (a summary with stage values) and is self-contained. Minor omissions like pagination or possible filters are not critical given the simplicity.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully documents this). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and the provided sentence is sufficient.

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 a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('deal pipeline summary') with a specific detail ('values per stage'). It is distinct from sibling tools like crm_get_dashboard or crm_get_timeline, so it fully identifies the tool's purpose.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve a pipeline summary, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like crm_get_dashboard or crm_move_deal. No exclusions or context for selection are given, so the agent must infer usage from the name and generic context.

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