crm_list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial data, or handles errors. The mention of 'pagination' hints at some behavior but lacks details about how pagination works (e.g., cursor-based vs offset).

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or how filtering/pagination parameters work together. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 but only partially does. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which maps to parameters like 'archived', 'properties', 'after', and 'limit', but doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they interact. The description adds some context but leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_search_objects' or 'crm_batch_read_objects', which likely serve similar listing/searching functions.

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' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_search_objects' or 'crm_batch_read_objects' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar tools.

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