analyze_custom_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'analyze' and 'statistical breakdown' but does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe the output format, or mention any side effects or limitations. The behavioral details are lacking.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence and a useful workflow line. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more compact by removing the 'Perfect for' clause. Still, it earns a 4 for structure and efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters), lack of output schema, and the presence of a similar sibling, the description only provides a high-level purpose and workflow. It omits critical details such as the return structure, how pagination is handled, and how it differs from analyze_module_field. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter context beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not go into specifics about how breakdown_field or numeric_field interact.

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 tool analyzes any CRM module with a statistical breakdown by field values, and lists use cases like generating reports and identifying patterns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'analyze_module_field', so it stops short of 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 provides an explicit workflow: first use crm_get_all_modules, then get_custom_module_records, and finally analyze_custom_module. This gives clear context on when to use the tool. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow is strong enough to warrant a 4.

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