list_pipelines

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

Annotation already marks readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format ('pipeline names with their stages (name, position)'), which is useful context beyond the annotation. It does not mention pagination or whether all pipelines are always returned, but with annotations covering safety, this is a solid addition.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return shape. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it returns ('pipeline names with their stages (name, position)'), which is the main missing piece from structured data. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. No parameter information is needed in the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('opportunity pipelines'), scoped to the current GoHighLevel location. Siblings are all different resources (tags, folders, workflows), so no direct alternative needs naming, but the description does not explicitly differentiate beyond the resource name.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It simply describes the action; the agent must infer that this tool is for enumerating pipelines.

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