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. It mentions 'Get all associations' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'after' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'associations' entail. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, pagination behavior, and distinctions from other tools, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific type' which loosely relates to 'fromObjectType' and 'toObjectType', but doesn't explain parameter meanings, relationships (e.g., 'fromObjectId' as the source object), or usage of 'after' and 'limit' for pagination. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Get all associations of a specific type between objects' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('associations'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_list_association_types' or 'crm_get_object'. It specifies 'specific type' but doesn't clarify what that means in context.

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. With many sibling tools like 'crm_list_association_types', 'crm_get_object', and 'crm_search_objects', the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from other association-related tools.

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