crm_get_all_modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by warning about token limits and recommending pagination strategies, and it explicitly advises using smaller per_page values for error recovery. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate for a listing tool. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention auth requirements, it goes beyond the minimal by discussing response-size limitations and recovery tactics.

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 short and well-structured with clear section labels (Workflow Starter, Next Steps, Pagination, Error Recovery). However, the Next Steps section contains inaccurate tool names, meaning that portion does not 'earn its place' and actively misleads. The structure is good but the content reliability issue prevents a higher score.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides useful pagination and error-handling context. However, the core workflow guidance (which is a headline feature of the description) is flawed due to incorrect tool references. This makes the description incomplete for agents relying on it to navigate the full discovery workflow, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters, giving baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use page and per_page to limit response size and avoid token limits, and offers concrete troubleshooting advice (try 10-20). This semantic guidance goes beyond what the schema provides, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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's purpose: 'Get all CRM modules with metadata.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'crm_get_all_modules' aligns with the description. It is distinguishable from siblings like crm_get_module_details (which targets a specific module) and crm_get_module_fields (which targets fields), so purpose clarity is excellent.

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?

While the description labels this as a 'WORKFLOW STARTER' and provides 'Next Steps', it references tools that do not exist in the sibling list: 'crm_get_fields' and 'crm_validate_criteria' are not among the provided sibling tools. This is misleading and could cause the agent to attempt invoking nonexistent tools, making the usage guidance not only unhelpful but actively harmful. No when-not-to-use guidance is given either.

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