Get Pipeline Item Schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns in detail (ALL fields, with name, required, type, input_format, valid_options, is_custom_field) and why pipeline_id is needed. It doesn't mention errors or rate limits, but for a read-only schema fetch, the behavioral context 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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a short note about pipeline_id, a bullet list of return fields, and a numbered workflow. Every line adds value, and the formatting is clear.

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 (1 param, no output schema), but the description thoroughly explains the return structure and integrates the tool into a workflow with sibling tools (get_pipelines, create_pipeline_item). This fully covers what an agent needs to use the tool effectively.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with 'The PipelineId to get the schema for'. The description adds context beyond the schema: 'Requires pipeline_id because each pipeline has different custom fields' and explains where to obtain pipeline_id via get_pipelines in the workflow.

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 states 'Get complete field schema for creating/editing pipeline items' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipeline_custom_fields by noting it returns ALL fields (both fixed system fields and custom fields), not just custom fields.

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 a clear workflow: first call get_pipelines to find pipeline_id, then call this tool, then use the schema to construct create/edit calls. It explains why pipeline_id is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_pipeline_custom_fields for custom-fields-only use, but the workflow gives strong contextual guidance.

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