crpt_fetch_all

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that cursor fields are managed, the array path is selected from the catalog automatically, a configurable max_items hard cap protects context, and the response includes total_fetched, pages_fetched, and truncated. This gives the agent an accurate model of runtime behavior.

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 definition is compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short pagination-style line, an Args list covering all seven parameters, and a return-shape line. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains how to identify the endpoint, which parameters are base vs managed, how to override the array path, and what the response looks like. The output schema and annotations cover the remaining structured details.

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 full burden and succeeds: every parameter is explained semantically (operation_id, query/body/path_values, items_path override, limit, max_items), including the important caveat that cursor fields are managed automatically.

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 opens with a specific action and outcome: 'Auto-paginate a read endpoint and return every row in one response.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like crpt_call_method or crpt_get_raw by emphasizing multi-page read aggregation, automatic array-path handling, and support for multiple pagination styles.

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 context is clear: use this when a catalog read endpoint needs to be fully paginated and all rows are wanted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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