crm_get_associations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by 'after' and 'limit' parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the associations are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (3 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, pagination behavior, or when to use versus alternatives. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 (no parameter descriptions in the schema), the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters. It mentions 'specific type' which vaguely relates to fromObjectType/toObjectType, but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their enum values, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all associations of a specific type between objects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling CRM tools like 'crm_list_association_types' or 'crm_get_object', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling CRM tools available (like crm_list_association_types, crm_get_object, crm_search_objects), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from similar tools.

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