crm_get_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is a 'get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it returns full objects or requires property specification. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist, but provides inadequate behavioral 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 extremely concise at just 7 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal syntax. While it may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'CRM object', how results are returned, what authentication is needed, or how to interpret parameters. The minimal description fails to provide adequate context for proper tool usage.

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 and 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' values mean, what format 'objectId' should be in, what 'properties' controls, or what 'associations' does. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single CRM object by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like crm_get_company, crm_get_contact, or crm_get_lead, which appear to serve similar purposes for specific object types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like crm_get_company, crm_get_contact, and crm_list_objects, there's no indication of when this generic 'get object' tool is preferred over type-specific getters or list operations.

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