Get pipeline stage

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—such as error behavior, response contents, or access requirements—beyond the plain read action. It does not contradict the annotations but also does not enrich them.

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 a single, focused sentence of eight words. It front-loads the action and resource, includes the key identifiers, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with two required integer parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does and the identifiers needed. It lacks explicit return-value details or use-case scenarios, but the operation is straightforward and sibling tools provide context for when this single-stage fetch might be used.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic mapping by referring to 'pipeline ID' and 'stage ID', which correspond to pipeline_id and status_id respectively. This helps the agent understand what each parameter means, though it does not elaborate on validation, relationships, or typical values. It partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specifies a single action ('Get') on a specific resource ('a stage') and names the required identifiers ('pipeline ID and stage ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_stages_list or kommo_stages_update. It provides exactly the information needed to understand what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kommo_stages_list or when a single stage fetch is appropriate. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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