List pipelines

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicating the safe read nature, the description adds only the 'when embedded' nuance about stages. This is useful but lacks details on response format, pagination, or error behavior. It does not contradict the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It delivers the core action and a relevant qualifier in a compact format.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only list tool with good annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. Minor gaps include lack of explicit return type or pagination details, but the tool's simplicity and openWorldHint annotation mitigate the need for more.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and adds no unnecessary param-related details. No further semantic elaboration is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'lead pipelines', and clarifies scope with 'all' and the optional inclusion of stages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_pipelines_get (retrieve one) or kommo_pipelines_create.

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 implies use for retrieving all pipelines, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over kommo_pipelines_get or kommo_stages_list. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is largely implicit.

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