rdstation_list_deal_pipelines

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the list semantics and does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, auth requirements, or whether the result includes nested stages or just top-level pipeline objects.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriately concise for a parameterless list operation.

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 an operation with no parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description is mostly complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not describe the returned data shape, but 'List deal pipelines' strongly implies the return value, and no output schema is required for a simple enumeration.

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 zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter details to supplement. The description's identification of the resource is sufficient, matching the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('deal pipelines (funis)') within a named system (RD Station CRM). The resource name itself distinguishes this from sibling tools such as rdstation_list_deals and rdstation_list_deal_stages.

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 use case is implied: an agent will call this when it needs the set of configured deal pipelines in RD Station CRM. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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