list_modules_for_fork

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns 'basic module information in a simple format' and specifies the return type as a 'JSON formatted list'. This discloses the read-only nature and format, though it could mention if any side effects exist (none implied).

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 concise with two clear sentences and a 'Returns' block. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and scope, the second describes the output. No fluff or 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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists (even if not shown), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no additional info beyond the empty object. The description adds meaning by specifying the source ('control plane') and the constraint ('can be forked'), which is valuable context not derivable from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'available modules from the control plane that can be forked'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'fork_existing_module' (which performs the fork) and 'get_local_modules' (which lists local modules).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like 'fork_existing_module' which likely depend on this tool.

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