describe_modulo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows available fields, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Italian that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a single-parameter read operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., field names, types, descriptions) or any behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool that retrieves metadata, more context on the return format would be helpful to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'modulo' documented as 'Nome del modulo (es. Potentials, Contacts, Activities)'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 what the tool does: 'Mostra i campi disponibili per un modulo VTENext' (Shows available fields for a VTENext module). It specifies the verb 'mostra' (shows) and the resource 'campi disponibili' (available fields) with the target 'un modulo VTENext' (a VTENext module). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_raw' or 'get_opportunita' that might also retrieve module-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'query_raw' that might handle similar queries, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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