list_contact_pipelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are limited to what the requesting user can see, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether archived pipelines are included, pagination behavior, or any side effects (though listing implies read-only).

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 that gets straight to the point. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (likely documenting return structure), the description is mostly complete. It states the core behavior and scope. However, it could usefully mention whether it returns all pipelines or if pagination/filtering applies, but this is a minor gap.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'contact/lead pipelines', and adds scope 'visible to the requesting user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deal_pipelines, which operate on deal pipelines rather than contact pipelines.

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 implies use for retrieving contact/lead pipelines and notes visibility scoping, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usability is implied by the clear resource reference, but no explicit guidance is given.

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