Get Pipeline Custom Fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the responsibility of explaining behavior. It clearly lists return fields (name, required, type, input_format, valid_options), explains their meaning, and includes an example interpretation. It does not cover error cases or authentication, but the read-only nature and expected response structure are well articulated.

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 a purpose statement, bullet list of return fields, a numbered workflow, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the formatting makes it easy to parse despite its length.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, yet the description thoroughly explains the return values and how to use them in a follow-up call. The workflow and example make it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% coverage for the single pipeline_id parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds value by explaining where to obtain the pipeline_id (from get_pipelines) and clarifying that it refers to a specific pipeline, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 gets custom fields for a specific pipeline, explicitly distinguishing it from the general get_custom_fields tool. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get custom fields for a specific pipeline') and provides clear scope.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('use this before creating or editing pipeline items') and a step-by-step workflow referencing get_pipelines and create_pipeline_item. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools like get_custom_fields, but the specific-pipeline framing implicitly differentiates it.

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