Get Pipelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool as a retrieval operation, discloses the returned fields (IDs, names, icons, status definitions with sort order), and adds context about how PipelineId and StatusId are used downstream. It does not mention pagination, auth, or edge cases, but for a read-only list 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 structured with a purpose statement, return values, and a numbered workflow. It is slightly longer than necessary but each section earns its place; the front-loaded purpose sentence ensures clarity. The workflow adds value but could be trimmed.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return values (IDs, names, icons, status definitions with sort order) and provides a complete workflow for using the results. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to add. The description appropriately references PipelineId and StatusId as output values rather than parameters, making the baseline of 4 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 opens with 'Retrieve all pipeline definitions for this LACRM account', giving a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies that it returns pipeline IDs, names, icons, and status definitions, and the workflow positions it as the tool for discovering pipelines before creating or editing pipeline items, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pipeline.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to discover available pipelines and their statuses before creating or editing pipeline items', providing a clear when-to-use context. It also outlines a three-step workflow that references get_pipeline_custom_fields as the follow-up, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_pipeline or state when not to use this tool.

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