Export the user's CRM (leads with pipeline stage and key fields) as CSV text to save to a file or spreadsheet. Returns up to limit rows; for very large databases use the in-app 'Download CRM Backup (CSV)' button.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 5000, max 20000). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it returns up to limit rows as CSV. This is useful but not extensive behavioral detail beyond 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?
Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds usage guidance. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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 export tool with one parameter and safety annotations, description provides adequate context: output format, field scope, and limit. Could specify CSV structure more, but not critical.
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 covers the single parameter 'limit' with description of default and max. Description repeats 'up to limit rows', adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 due to full schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states the tool exports CRM (leads with pipeline stage and key fields) as CSV text. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the output format and mentioning a limit, which is unique among siblings.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (for exports up to limit) and suggests an alternative (in-app download) for very large databases. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' beyond large databases but is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search tools (search_job_postings, search_google_xray, search_linkedin_people, search_web) and messaging tools (send_connection_request, send_linkedin_message, reply_to_chat). However, detailed descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_contacts_to_campaign, list_campaigns). No mixing of conventions.
48 tools is high but justifiable given the broad domain (LinkedIn outreach, CRM, campaigns, job postings, etc.). However, some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple search tools).
The tool set covers the entire workflow: searching, connecting, messaging, campaign management, CRM operations (fields, stages, tasks, notes), job postings, and posting. No obvious gaps.
