pipedrive_pipelines_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no rate-limit or pagination behavior, and no statement about whether archived or deleted pipelines are included. The word "all" is the only scope hint, and it sits uneasily against a schema with a default page size of 25.

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?

A single two-word sentence with zero filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity reads more like a fragment than a structured definition.

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 parameterless-required list endpoint with fully documented params and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the pagination semantics ("all" vs. default limit 25) and the absence of any filtering/freshness context unexplained.

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?

Both parameters (limit, cursor) have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents page size and the opaque pagination token. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List all pipelines"), which is unambiguous in isolation. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as pipedrive_pipelines_get, pipedrive_stages_list, or pipedrive_my_pipeline_summary, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 on when to call this versus pipedrive_pipelines_get (single pipeline) or pipedrive_my_pipeline_summary. No prerequisites, no mention of pagination being required to see everything.

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