get-pipelines

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

Annotations fully cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), but the description adds no behavioral traits beyond 'list'. It does not mention pagination behavior (cursor, limit) or that results are incremental, even though these are implied by parameters.

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 very concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded but underspecified for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.

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 absence of an output schema and limited description, the tool definition fails to convey response format or practical invocation details (e.g., how to paginate). Complexities like cursor management are not addressed, making it incomplete for agent use.

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation for the 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters. The agent must infer their meaning from constraints alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 Pipedrive pipelines' clearly states the action (list) and resource (pipelines), distinguishing it from siblings like get-pipeline (singular). However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., which pipelines, filtering) compared to high-quality examples.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-pipeline for a single pipeline or search-pipelines (if exists). The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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