crm_list_objects

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. While it mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a listing tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'CRM objects' (resource), 'specific type' (key constraint), and 'optional filtering and pagination' (additional capabilities). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'CRM objects' are, what filtering options exist beyond the implied parameters, what the response format looks like, or how pagination works in practice. The agent would need to guess about many important aspects of tool behavior.

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 description mentions 'specific type' (mapping to objectType), 'optional filtering' (potentially covering properties and archived), and 'pagination' (covering after and limit). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds some semantic context beyond the bare schema, but doesn't fully explain each parameter's purpose, format, or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('CRM objects of a specific type'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from other tools by focusing on listing with filtering/pagination, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_search_objects' or 'crm_list_association_types', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_search_objects' or 'crm_get_object'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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