crm_get_module_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that pagination and filtering are used to avoid large responses, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, error handling, or the nature of the response (e.g., field metadata structure). The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and key features without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured 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?

For a read-only listing tool with five documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It could benefit from mentioning what the response contains (e.g., field names, types, labels) or any limitations, but given the schema coverage and simple purpose, it is minimally viable.

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%, so each parameter already has a clear description (page, per_page, field_type, module_name, search_term). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic mention of pagination and filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the burden.

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 action (Get) and resource (fields for a module), and mentions pagination and filtering which are key features. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like crm_get_picklist_fields or crm_get_field_details, but the specificity of 'fields for a module' is sufficient for general understanding.

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 usage when you need a paginated/filtered list of module fields to avoid large responses, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as when to use crm_get_picklist_fields for picklists-only or crm_get_field_details for a single field. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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