crm_get_module_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or returns a snapshot. It offers no detail about what 'detailed metadata' includes or whether the response is exhaustive.

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-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, scoring maximum on conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves significant ambiguity about what constitutes 'detailed metadata' and how it differs from several sibling tools. Without an output schema or richer description, an agent cannot reliably determine if this tool returns fields, layouts, relationships, or just basic module information.

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% and the only parameter (module_name) is documented in the schema as 'Name of the module'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 retrieves detailed metadata for a specific module, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata for a specific module'). However, 'detailed metadata' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like crm_get_module_fields or crm_get_metadata_summary, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the go-to tool for a single module's metadata, nor does it exclude cases where crm_get_all_modules or crm_get_complete_module_configuration would be more appropriate.

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