accelo_list_enum

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the valid (object, enum_type) combinations, which is crucial behavioral context that prevents invalid calls, and notes which enums support search/fields/filters. It doesn't cover pagination defaults or error behavior, but the critical constraint is documented.

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?

Well-structured with a leading purpose sentence, a usage example, a categorical table of valid combinations, and an Args section. The valid-combinations list is long but earns its place by preventing invalid calls; slight verbosity in example formatting.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the domain constraints, parameter usage, and usage context. Missing only return-value shape and pagination behavior, which are minor for a discovery tool.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it documents each parameter (object, enum_type, filters, fields, search, page, limit) with examples and notes on which enums support them, far exceeding 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List an object's enumeration values') with parenthetical examples of what enums are. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like accelo_list_issues or accelo_list_companies by being the lookup for valid IDs rather than the listing of records.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('DISCOVER valid IDs before filtering a list endpoint') and provides a concrete end-to-end example chaining to accelo_list_issues. This is best-in-class routing guidance among the many list_* siblings.

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