crm_semantic_field_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action and does not mention how the search is scoped (e.g., by module), what happens with include_custom_fields, or what kind of results are returned. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist, but transparency is minimal.

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-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It includes parenthetical examples that are useful without being verbose. Every word earns its place, making it an example of concise writing.

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?

Despite having a simple parameter set, the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., field names, labels, metadata). It also lacks usage guidance or behavioral context, leaving the agent to guess the tool's full capabilities. More details about result structure or search scope would be necessary for completeness.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only examples of 'concept' values that duplicate the schema's own examples (e.g., 'disposition', 'status', 'reason'). It does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Semantic field search - find fields related to a concept' with concrete examples like 'disposition', 'status', 'reason'. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('fields related to a concept'), and the term 'semantic' distinguishes it from literal search tools like crm_search_fields, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crm_search_fields or crm_smart_field_discovery. There is no mention of scenarios where semantic search is preferable or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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