get_enabled_modules

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does provide meaningful behavioral context: Bookkeeping and AI are always available, while CRM, Proposals, and Workflow are mandatory or opt-in depending on organization type. It also discloses the intended usage constraint. It stops short of explicitly stating that it is a read-only operation or describing the response shape, but the added context is substantial.

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-loads the purpose, then gives important availability context, then ends with a clear actionable instruction. The single paragraph is dense but earns every clause; nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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 no-argument capability-listing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its role: what it returns, which modules are always available, which are conditional, and the policy for using disabled module tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not add parameter-level details because none exist, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description.

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 ('List') and resource ('modules and capabilities enabled for the connected organization'), making the scope unambiguous. It also frames itself as a prerequisite capability check, which distinguishes it from the many search/get/create action tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call it: 'call this before offering any sales, proposal, or job/workflow action.' It also states the consequence of not doing so ('if a module is not enabled, do not attempt its tools') and explains the organizational conditions (CA vs CB) that determine module availability.

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