List Active Pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds only the 'active' filtering scope, a small amount of context beyond the structured fields.

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 efficient sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and zero wasted words. Nothing to trim.

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, zero-required-parameter list operation with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note the 'active-only' filter's implications or how results relate to get_pipeline_flow, but the core need is met.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, response_format) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about pagination, defaults, or format choices, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (active customer service funnels/pipelines) with the scoping qualifier 'active'. An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pipeline-related siblings like get_pipeline_flow beyond the implicit list-vs-detail distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. There is no mention that this is the entry point before calling heymax_crm_get_pipeline_flow, which would have been valuable routing information.

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