Ghl List Pipelines

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 only states that it lists pipelines and stages, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the effect of the location_id parameter. The description adds no insight beyond the basic purpose.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 that the tool has an optional parameter and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of location_id, any potential filtering behavior, or any constraints. While the output schema exists, the agent is left guessing about how to effectively use the tool. A more complete description would at least mention the parameter's role.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the location_id parameter at all. The agent has no indication of what this optional parameter does or when to use it. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('opportunity pipelines') and includes that it returns stages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_pipeline (creation) or ghl_list_workflows (different resource). The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must rely solely on the tool name to infer usage, which is not sufficient for differentiation from other list tools like ghl_list_forms or ghl_list_workflows.

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