crm_get_dependent_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get fields' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, if pagination or limits apply, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, consisting of two sentences totaling about 20 words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds context. However, the second sentence ('Useful for understanding field relationships and dependencies') is somewhat generic and could be more specific, preventing a perfect 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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but does not hint at the return structure, whether it returns a list of field names or full field details, or any limitations. Given the absence of output schema, this feels incomplete for an agent trying to interpret the result, but it is not critically deficient.

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 100%, with both module_name and field_name having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already states ('in a module' and 'specific field' are implicit in the parameter names/descriptions). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 function: 'Get fields that depend on a specific field in a module.' This identifies a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('depend on a specific field') distinguishes it from broader field-related tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_field_relationships or analyze_module_field, so it stops short of a 5.

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 adds 'Useful for understanding field relationships and dependencies,' which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools, so it earns a 3.

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