get_report_queries_kernel_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'GET' but does not mention authentication, rate limits, error cases, or any side effects. It also fails to clarify the meaning of 'route IDs' or how missing parameters affect the call.

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 sentences with minimal waste, front-loading the verb and resource, then providing the endpoint and parameter guidance. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format doesn't need explanation. However, the description lacks domain context (what kernel modules are, why they matter) and doesn't help an agent decide among the many sibling report-query tools. It provides the minimum needed to make the call but not enough to use it wisely.

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 0% and parameters have no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It maps path_params to 'route IDs', query to 'filters and pagination', and headers to 'required request headers', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it remains vague about specific filter keys or pagination syntax, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Retrieve kernel modules') and names the resource and exact endpoint. It distinguishes itself by resource name, even without explicit sibling differentiation. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explains how to structure the request (path_params, query, headers) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other report-query tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving selection to inference.

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