salesforce_get_pipeline_report

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

The description adds execution-routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, output behavior, or what changes may occur. This is a notable gap because annotations mark destructiveHint=true, yet the description never acknowledges that running this action may have destructive or mutating effects.

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 short and front-loads the core action. It avoids excessive detail, though the Args section largely duplicates what the schema already shows and adds minimal value.

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 an output schema and two open-ended parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the pipeline report represents, what inputs influence the report, what side effects might occur given destructiveHint=true, or how this differs from other Salesforce report/query tools. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly with only the provided text.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides only generic labels: 'Free-text objective for the action' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs. This does not tell the agent what kind of objective, what structured inputs are valid, or how to format them for this specific pipeline report action.

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 operation: 'Run the salesforce domain agent action `get_pipeline_report`.' It identifies the domain, the action name, and the dispatch mechanism. However, it does not explain what a pipeline report contains or differentiate it from closely related siblings like salesforce_run_report or salesforce_pipeline_report.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention salesforce_run_report, salesforce_pipeline_report, or any conditions that would select one over the other. The only usage signal is the action name itself, which is not enough for an agent to choose among many similar Salesforce tools.

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