crm_get_picklist_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: it returns both active and inactive values and display labels, and it indicates error states ('Field not found' or 'Not a picklist') with remediation. It does not discuss read-only safety or permissions, but the name 'get' and the workflow context imply a non-destructive operation. This is more informative than a bare getter description.

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 structured with clear sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, etc.) and front-loads the core purpose in the first line. It is longer than strictly necessary but each section earns its place by providing workflow guidance and error recovery, which aids agent decision-making.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what is returned (picklist values, active/inactive, display labels), how to use the results in subsequent tools, and how to handle errors. The common-pattern chain gives full end-to-end context, making the tool's role in the CRM workflow clear.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('Name of the field' and 'Name of the module'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description reinforces that module_name and field_name should come from field discovery but does not add new semantic details about format, validation, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get picklist values for a specific field in a module including active, inactive values and display labels.' This clearly states the tool's function and output scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like crm_get_picklist_fields (which lists fields) and crm_get_field_details.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Use crm_get_fields first to identify picklist fields') and next steps ('Use picklist values for crm_validate_criteria...'). It also includes a common-pattern chain and error-recovery guidance, telling the agent when to use this tool and how to handle failures. This exceeds the minimum by giving a concrete workflow.

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