teamleader_list_deal_pipelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the response meta contains the default pipeline ID, which is helpful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior beyond the implicit page parameters, or mention any potential side effects. It is a simple list tool, but the lack of explicit read-only or error context keeps this at a baseline 3.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It opens with the core purpose, then immediately adds the valuable tip about the default pipeline ID and the intended use for finding IDs. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 optional pagination and no output schema, the description is generally adequate but has gaps. It mentions the response meta but does not describe the structure of the pipeline objects (e.g., fields like id, name). The phrase 'pipeline/phase IDs' introduces ambiguity—it may suggest the tool returns phase IDs, when only pipelines are listed. This could lead an agent to make incorrect assumptions. A clearer response summary or disambiguation from list_deal_phases would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage for the two parameters, each with descriptions including defaults and max values. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description's contribution is neutral, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'List deal pipelines.' It also adds the specific purpose of finding pipeline/phase IDs, and mentions the default pipeline ID in the response meta, which is a useful distinguishing detail. Out of the many sibling list tools, this one is uniquely about pipelines, so there is no ambiguity.

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 says 'Use to find pipeline/phase IDs,' which gives a concrete scenario for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the instruction is actionable. The phrase 'pipeline/phase IDs' is slightly ambiguous because the tool only lists pipelines, not phases, which could mislead an agent into thinking it returns phase IDs directly. Still, it provides clear usage context.

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