Loaded Modules

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. The GET method and the word "List" imply a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state safety, response shape, or any limitations beyond what the name already suggests.

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, front-loaded sentence that states purpose and endpoint without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the HTTP endpoint. However, without an output schema or further description, the agent gets no return-format details and no clarification on what distinguishes "modules" from sibling "models" listings.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-level meaning to add, and the description neither confuses nor omits anything relevant.

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 the action and resource: "List loaded model modules" and provides the endpoint path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling `sdnext_loaded_models`, especially since "modules" and "models" could be confused.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `sdnext_loaded_models` or other list tools. The description implies a simple read use case but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons.

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