pipelines_get_stages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that stages are returned in order (by order_nr), includes deal probability and rotten deal settings, which are behavioral traits. It does not mention auth requirements or side effects, but for a read-only operation this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with sections: main description, workflow tips, and common use cases. It is concise without being terse, though a few sentences could be more directly actionable. The structure aids readability.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return details (ordered stages, probability, rotten settings) and provides concrete examples. There are no gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id' (pipeline ID). The description adds value by showing how to use the parameter in context (e.g., 'Use this to get stage IDs for deal creation'), which goes beyond the bare schema definition.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all stages for a specific pipeline', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pipelines_get (which gets pipeline details) and pipelines_deals. It specifies the output includes configuration, order, probability, and rotten settings, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 workflow tips and common use cases, such as obtaining stage IDs for deal creation and checking stage probabilities. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the examples offer clear context for appropriate scenarios, e.g., retrieving all stages rather than a single stage.

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