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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations, it discloses the pagination contract (nextCursor in the answer), the required client-side actions (write files under src/modules/{id}/, install dependencies, register in src/modules.ts), and the 'takes no title_id' constraint. This is substantive behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then paging, then a closing constraint — every sentence earns its place. It is dense with colon-delimited instruction lists, which makes it slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description still describes what comes back (file contents, install instructions, nextCursor) plus the pagination termination condition and the prerequisite dependency. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already explains both id and cursor, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the looping semantics tying cursor to nextCursor and clarifies the file-index meaning of cursor, exceeding what the schema alone conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one module's source (files) plus install instructions') and scopes it precisely. It distinguishes itself from list_modules (source of ids) and get_host_scaffold (the required base), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 prerequisites ('The project needs the base first (get_host_scaffold)') and an explicit paging loop ('call again with the same id and cursor=nextCursor until nextCursor is absent'). It also identifies list_modules as the id source, covering when and how to use the tool.

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