im_get_pipeline_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation and lists the possible stages. While it does not detail side effects or authorization needs, for a simple status retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key detail (list of stages). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential information: what it returns (pipeline stages) and the input needed. It lacks guidance on error cases or return format, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool.

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% with one parameter (candidate_id) described minimally. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, such as format requirements or examples, but it is understandable in context. Baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recruitment pipeline status'), and explicitly lists the possible stages (applied, screening, interview, offer, placed, rejected), making it clear what the tool returns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like im_get_candidate or im_get_job by focusing on pipeline progress.

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 states the tool's purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For instance, it does not contrast with im_get_candidate (which might return general candidate info) or im_get_match_score. The agent must infer usage from context.

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