get_attribute_dependencies

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it delivers by disclosing best-effort behavior, a definite action to trigger it, and its dependency. The only small gap is a lack of detail on error cases (e.g., invalid entity name) and typical return codes, but what is disclosed adds real value.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose. It's front-loaded with the core function, then usage trigger, reliability caveat, and technical background. No wasted words.

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 read-only inspection tool with clear parameters and rich context clues, the description is thorough. The single minor gap is not specifying the return shape in case of success or error, but that's partially mitigated by the parenthetical in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented; the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds context by explaining these two parameters uniquely identify the attribute, enhancing understanding beyond a simple 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?

The description is exemplary: it uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('CRM components that reference a column'), and provides concrete examples ('forms, views, workflows...'). It goes further by naming a direct association with a backend function, which uniquely identifies the operation.

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?

Explicit guidance is clear: call this tool when deletes fail with a specific error, or as a pre-destructive action. It positions itself as a companion to delete operations, distinguishing it from other tools in the sibling list. No ambiguity.

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