Get Module

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. However, it adds real value by disclosing the payload contents (prerequisites, personal completion state, nested items), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: the return contract is front-loaded, followed by the safety note and the ID-sourcing hint. Nothing extraneous, and each clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete — it tells the agent what comes back and where the IDs originate. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., error behavior for an invalid module_id, whether items are truncated).

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, including the same 'get it from list_modules' hint repeated in the description. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one module') and enumerates the returned fields: name, position, unlock date, prerequisites, completion state, and items. This clearly separates it from list_modules, though the differentiation is implicit in the ID-sourcing hint rather than stated outright.

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?

Gives the concrete prerequisite for invocation: 'Get module_id from list_modules', which routes the agent through the right sibling first. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but for a single-record fetch tool the usage context is clear.

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