sf_pipeline_by_campaign

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Show open pipeline', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it filters by user, what 'open' means (likely status but not explicit), or any side effects. It's a read operation, but no safety or performance context is given.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place by being short, but front-loading is minimal. It could be expanded to include key details without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of grouping, or any limitations. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 input schema has three parameters (dateFrom, dateTo, openOnly) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any of them, not even that openOnly defaults to true (implied by 'open pipeline' but not explicitly stated). The agent has no help understanding how to use these parameters.

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 what the tool does: 'Show open pipeline grouped by campaign and stage'. It specifies the verb 'show', the resource 'open pipeline', and the grouping. While it is specific, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like sf_pipeline_summary or sf_pipeline_by_lead_source, which could serve similar purposes.

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. With many sibling pipeline tools, an agent cannot determine if this is the correct choice without trial and error.

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