crm_get_field_relationships

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose output format, whether dependencies are direct or transitive, performance implications for large modules, or any permissions needed. The claim of 'comprehensive analysis' is a promise but not a behavioral disclosure.

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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the second sentence, 'Provides comprehensive analysis of field connections,' largely repeats the first and adds little value. It could be one sentence, making each word count.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose, but given no output schema, it would benefit from describing what the response contains or how relationships are represented. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 description for module_name is 'Name of the module' and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, such as acceptable formats or examples, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gets all field relationships and dependencies in a module, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crm_get_dependent_fields by emphasizing 'all' and 'comprehensive 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?

The purpose implies when to use it (when you need field relationship analysis), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. No exclusion or comparison to related tools like crm_analyze_picklist_dependencies is provided.

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