crm_get_complete_module_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes fields, layouts, custom views, and related lists, which adds value. However, it does not mention permissions, response size, pagination, or performance implications, and the read-only nature is only implied by 'Get.'

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, well-structured sentence that lists the included components without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for return-value expectations. It explicitly lists the four main components, which is sufficient for most use cases. However, it does not describe the structure or potential volume of the response, leaving some uncertainty for agents needing precise data shapes.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter, module_name, which is described as 'Name of the module.' The description does not add further detail about values or formatting, so it meets the baseline for schema-driven parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'complete module configuration,' and lists the components (fields, layouts, custom views, related lists). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch these individually, such as crm_get_module_fields, crm_get_layouts, crm_get_custom_views, and crm_get_related_lists.

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 implies this is the aggregate tool for full configuration, and the word 'complete' indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of individual getters or mention exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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