list_modules

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying that unloaded modules are included and by disclosing the return shape (fields and count), which annotations do not cover.

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?

Two tight sentences: the operation and scope come first, the return shape second. No filler, everything front-loaded.

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 simple read-only lister with no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and scope clarification, and annotations cover safety. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents pattern, loaded_only, and name_pattern, including the alias caveat. The description only echoes the substring-filter idea and adds no format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (enumerate) and resource (engine/game/plugin modules) with a clarifying scope ('loaded or not'). It is clearer than the generic name alone, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list_* module tools like list_niagara_modules.

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 an optional substring filter, but that is parameter behavior, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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