Search Pipeline Items

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns full data with all fields, count_only auto-paginates and omits results, name filters auto-resolve to IDs case-insensitively. It also explains that advanced filters require calling get_pipeline_item_schema, adding helpful context.

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 compact and uses clear section breaks (RETURNS FULL DATA, Required, Supports). Every sentence conveys essential usage or behavior, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the most important aspects: required parameter, return payload depth, advanced filters, and count_only for large results. It does not detail pagination or sorting, but those are described in the schema. It adequately references the schema tool for advanced field names, making the tool usable end-to-end.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by highlighting the required pipeline_id (with pointer to get_pipelines), explaining the name-based filters as alternatives to IDs, and noting count_only is for accurate counts without returning results. These enrich the schema without restating it.

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 'Search for pipeline items within a specific pipeline' – a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the purpose by listing filter dimensions (status, user, custom field values). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_pipeline_item by explicitly noting 'no need to call get_pipeline_item afterward'.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('Use this to find items by status, user, or custom field values') and gives a clear alternative ('no need to call get_pipeline_item afterward'). It also provides a targeted use case for count_only. No explicit when-not list, but the guidance is clear enough.

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