List RIS modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little behavioral context beyond 'available' (presumably only currently available modules) – it does not mention auth needs, pagination, or return 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the scope of the tool.

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 list tool with annotations and partial schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However it omits profile usage and filter semantics, and with no output schema it does not clarify return values.

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 50%: profile has a schema description, but filter only has a regex pattern with no description. The phrase 'optionally filtered' hints at the filter's purpose but does not explain what it matches or how profile changes the listing, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented filter parameter.

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'), resource ('Lmod modules'), and scope ('on RIS') with optional filtering. The sibling list contains many job/env/SSH tools, so module listing is clearly distinct, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling or explain what an Lmod module is.

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?

Only 'optionally filtered' hints at usage. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives, even though many sibling tools exist for adjacent RIS operations.

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