crpt_call_method

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds value beyond them: it states no confirmation is required, describes the return envelope ({"ok": true, "status", "data"}), and notes that some read endpoints accept a body. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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: purpose first, followed by API target, read-only note, sibling routing, and parameter definitions. It is concise with no fluff, though the repeated 'Reads only' phrasing adds slight redundancy. The argument list is clear and compact.

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 the tool's generic nature, the description covers key usage points: how to get operation_id, how to supply path/query/body, and the response format. It references sibling tools for alternatives. It does not mention authentication prerequisites (though crpt_check_auth exists separately), which is a minor omission, but overall it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It explains operation_id as 'id from the catalog', path_values as 'values for {placeholders} in the path', query as 'query-string parameters', and body as 'JSON request body (a few read endpoints take one). These are basic but functional explanations; more concrete examples or format hints would elevate this score.

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 'Execute one READ endpoint from the catalog by operation_id', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from write and delete siblings by explicitly naming crpt_write_method and crpt_delete_method. The mention of the target API and read-only nature further clarifies its role.

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 clear guidance: it is for read endpoints, explicitly excludes write/delete via sibling tool names, and references crpt_search_methods for obtaining operation_id. However, it doesn't differentiate from other read siblings like crpt_get_section or crpt_fetch_all, so the agent may not know when to use this generic caller versus more specific read tools. This is a minor gap.

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