recommend_terraform_modules

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits. It does not specify that this is a read-only operation (likely safe), any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with the provided code. With no annotations, the description should have covered these aspects.

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 concise sentence that captures the essence of the tool. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, making it easy to read. However, it could be slightly richer with usage hints without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the recommendation output looks like (e.g., list of module names, URLs, descriptions). Given the presence of siblings that return structured results, this gap reduces usability for an AI agent.

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, each parameter is well-documented with type, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing the tool's purpose; the schema already explains how each parameter influences recommendations.

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 tool recommends Terraform Registry modules based on code patterns and deployment intent. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that analyze code, run linters, or suggest architecture/security strategies.

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 implies usage when the goal is to get module recommendations from the Terraform Registry given existing code and a deployment intent. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like 'suggest_terraform_architecture' or 'fetch_terraform_registry_guidance'.

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