crm_get_related_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about error recovery (e.g., checking if module supports relationships) and hints that the operation returns related lists. However, it does not mention permissions, return format, pagination, or potential side effects beyond the read implication.

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 well-structured with bolded sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, Error Recovery) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Some redundancy exists between 'Next Steps' and 'Common Pattern', but each section adds useful guidance without excessive verbosity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return expectations. It mentions 'showing relationships with other modules' but does not detail the structure of related lists. Error recovery and workflow guidance enhance completeness, but the lack of explicit output format or permission requirements 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 fully covers the single parameter module_name with a basic description. The tool description adds that module_name should be verified via crm_get_all_modules, providing operational context beyond the schema. No enums or complex structure, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 related lists for a module, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'related lists for a module'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crm_get_module_details and crm_get_field_relationships by focusing on module-to-module relationships, but does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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_all_modules to verify module_name) and a common pattern showing when this tool fits in a broader workflow. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool exclusions, but gives clear contextual cues for adoption.

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