crm_list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how rate limits apply, what happens with archived objects, or what the return format looks like. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, though it could benefit from more detail given the parameter 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how parameters interact. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context.

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 for 5 parameters, the description must compensate but only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering and pagination.' It doesn't explain what 'objectType' values mean, what 'properties' refers to, how 'after' works for pagination, what 'limit' constraints exist, or how 'archived' affects results. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('CRM objects of a specific type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_search_objects or crm_batch_read_objects, which might offer similar functionality with different approaches.

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' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_objects or crm_batch_read_objects. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases.

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