get_package_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns modules with functions and structs, which is helpful. However, it does not confirm read-only behavior, mention error handling (e.g., invalid packageId), or describe the output structure in detail.

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 extremely concise with one sentence that front-loads the action. It avoids redundancy. A slight improvement could be listing the output fields, but it is not verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should detail the return format. It mentions 'functions and structs' but does not specify whether the output is an array, object, or includes metadata like module names. Important context for a complex output is missing.

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% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'packageId'. The description does not clarify the term 'Package object ID' or provide context for finding it.

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 ('list'), the resource ('modules in a Move package'), and the included content ('functions and structs'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_normalized_module or get_move_function which target single resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_normalized_module or get_move_function. The agent is left to infer from the description that it's for a full overview, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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