list_pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: a 10-minute cache and the caveat that recent changes may not appear. It also sketches the returned object shape (id, name, sort, embedded stages).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then behavior, then usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming the returned fields and embedded stages, plus the caching caveat and the downstream purpose of the IDs. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema-dimension baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any arguments, and it correctly focuses on scope and return content instead.

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 and resource ('List all sales pipelines in the account') and clearly distinguishes itself from create_pipeline/update_pipeline siblings. It also frames its role as the entry point for obtaining pipeline_id/stage IDs used by other tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Start here to obtain the pipeline_id and stage IDs used by most lead tools'), which orients the agent within the tool family. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, but for a zero-param listing tool the routing context is strong.

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