get_pipeline_stages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context beyond the basic function. It discloses that the tool returns specific data (pipeline name, stages with id/name/forecastingType), explains how to use the output with search_leads, and provides guidance on handling ambiguous user queries ('open leads' or 'closed leads'). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers key operational aspects.

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 efficiently structured with four focused sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, providing usage prerequisites, describing the return format, and explaining downstream applications. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the final sentence about pipeline_id could be integrated more smoothly.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, return data structure, integration with other tools (lookup_pipelines, search_leads), and edge case handling for ambiguous queries. No significant gaps remain for agent understanding.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'pipeline_id: The pipeline ID (from lookup_pipelines).' This clarifies the parameter's source and relationship to another tool. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining what the parameter represents and where it comes from.

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's purpose: 'Get stages for a pipeline' with specific details about what it returns (pipeline name, list of stages with id, name, forecastingType). It distinguishes from siblings like lookup_pipelines by focusing on stages rather than pipelines themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like search_leads or create_lead.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this only after the user has confirmed which pipeline to use (from lookup_pipelines). Do not call before pipeline confirmation.' It names the prerequisite tool (lookup_pipelines) and specifies when NOT to use it, offering clear alternatives for related tasks like using stage IDs in search_leads.

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