crm_list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe read operation, what permissions are needed, or how pagination works (e.g., cursor-based with 'after'). For a list tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient detail.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List CRM objects of a specific type') and adds key features ('with optional filtering and pagination'). There's no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary context.

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 compensate for all parameters. It only vaguely references 'optional filtering and pagination', without explaining what 'objectType' entails, what 'properties' array does, or how 'archived' affects results. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to adequately document the 5 parameters.

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 differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_list_association_types' or 'crm_search_objects', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_search_objects' or 'crm_batch_read_objects'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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