List GHL Pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'all' pipelines and includes stages, which is useful. However, it does not explain behavior when the optional locationId is omitted, nor does it mention pagination or return format—gaps that annotations don't fill.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides enough for basic understanding, but the optional parameter's behavior and the exact return structure (beyond 'pipelines and stages') are not specified. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a location' which implies locationId is the location, but does not explain that the parameter is optional or what happens if omitted. The name 'locationId' is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful detail beyond that, leaving optionality and format unclear.

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 tool 'Get all pipelines and their stages for a location' with a specific verb (get), resource (pipelines and stages), and scope (per location). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like ghl_list_surveys and ghl_list_campaigns.

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 clear context that this is for fetching pipelines and stages for a specific location. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the resource is unique and the use case is implied. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficient.

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