kommo_get_pipeline_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose return format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks detail.

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 concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a critical usage note in the second sentence.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a usage hint. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., array of status objects with id and name), which could help the agent use the output. The completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has no description for the pipelineId parameter (0% coverage). The description only says 'for a specific pipeline', adding minimal value. However, the parameter is self-explanatory as a pipeline identifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves all statuses (stages) for a specific pipeline, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform this specific function.

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 explicitly notes the importance of using this tool to find a valid status_id before moving a lead to a different pipeline, providing a clear use case. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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