List modules

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It conveys a read-only listing and the effect of includeCounts (hierarchical module/submodule test case counts), but does not mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, or the potential cost of count fetching.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-count behavior is explained in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 two-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly: resource scope, required project context, and the optional flag. It does not document output fields or error cases, but the complexity is low and the schema covers parameters fully.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'hierarchical' to the includeCounts behavior and clarifies modules as 'sections,' but it mostly restates the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the modules (sections) of a project.' This clearly distinguishes list_modules from sibling tools like list_projects or list_test_cases, and the optional includeCounts behavior is identified.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve a project's modules, optionally with hierarchical submodule test case counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope ('of a project') makes the use case apparent against the sibling list tools.

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