crm_get_custom_views

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and includes error recovery tips, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, return structure, or pagination. The workflow mention of accessibility checking hints at permission considerations but does not fully disclose behavior.

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 core description is a single, clear sentence, but the additional prerequisite/next-steps/pattern sections are extensive for a one-parameter getter. They are well-structured with bold labels and provide genuine workflow value, though arguably more verbose than necessary.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description supplies essential workflow context: prereq verification, sibling tool sequencing, common pattern, and error recovery. This gives an agent enough to integrate the tool. It does not describe the return shape, but the rule allows that if an output schema existed—here it doesn't, so a brief mention would improve completeness.

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 fully describes module_name ('Name of the module'), and the description's 'for a module' adds no extra semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies; the description does not provide additional examples, formats, or type conventions.

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 function: 'Get all custom views for a module including system and user-defined views.' It specifies a concrete verb (Get), resource (custom views), and scope (module), and distinguishes it from sibling crm_get_custom_view_details by focusing on the complete list rather than single view analysis.

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?

Provides explicit workflow context: prerequisites (verify module with crm_get_all_modules), next steps (use crm_get_custom_view_details, crm_search_records, crm_create_custom_view), and a common pattern. This implicitly defines when to use the tool versus alternatives. Lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement, but the guidance is clear enough.

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