crm_list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which hints at some behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a list tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from similar tools. The conciseness comes at the expense of needed contextual information for proper tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'optional filtering and pagination' without explaining what parameters correspond to filtering (properties? archived? objectType?) or pagination (after? limit?). It doesn't add meaningful semantic context to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('CRM objects of a specific type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list/search tools like 'crm_list_association_types', 'crm_search_objects', or other domain-specific list tools (e.g., 'calls_list', 'emails_list'), which would require more specific differentiation to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including 'crm_search_objects' and domain-specific list tools, there's no indication of when this general list tool is preferred over search tools or other list variants, leaving the agent without usage context.

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