stages_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns stage configuration (order, probability, rotten settings) and pagination info, but does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and the description lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, bulleted workflow tips, and a list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be more concise by removing redundant examples (two identical 'Get all stages' examples). Overall, it is clean and easy to parse.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers functionality, filtering, and return data. It mentions pagination but does not elaborate on pagination parameters or limits. While sufficient for basic usage, it could be more thorough for edge cases.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The description adds further value by providing usage tips ('omit pipeline_id for all stages') and concrete examples in the common use cases, enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 retrieves stages, with optional pipeline filtering. It uses specific language ('get all stages across all pipelines or filter by pipeline') and distinguishes from siblings like 'stages_get' and 'stages_create' by emphasizing the 'all stages' scope and filtering capability.

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 explicit guidance on when to omit or include pipeline_id, and lists common use cases with example payloads. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or contrast it with alternatives like 'stages_get' or 'stages_list', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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