accelo_describe_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavioral context: the return includes types, descriptions, gotchas like time fields being in seconds, and usage patterns. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only describe tool this is largely sufficient.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, then return behavior, when to call, supported objects, and the argument. Every sentence contributes without filler, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 one-parameter metadata tool with a present output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, supported inputs, and notable return details. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without redundant return-value explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the required object_type argument, gives examples, and lists the supported object types, effectively providing the enum-like values that the schema omits. It could be slightly more precise about accepted format, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get field descriptions and examples for an Accelo object type.' It clarifies that it returns field-level documentation and lists supported objects, letting an agent distinguish it from CRUD siblings like accelo_get_activity or accelo_list_activities.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'Call this when you need to interpret response data or understand what fields are available.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative metadata tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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