list_analysis_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (id + name) and that the set is complete ('every'), but says nothing about whether the list is static or environment-dependent, its size, or ordering. For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool the risk surface is small, so this is adequate but thin.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the returned fields and the consuming tool appended. No filler 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (id + name) and the reason the tool exists (feeding run_analysis). It stops short of noting list stability or how to get each module's parameter schema, which describe_analysis presumably covers.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics to explain. The description instead documents the output fields (id + name), which is a small bonus for a schema-less return.

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 ('List') and resource ('every analysis procedure exposed by STATISTICA') and names the returned fields (id + name). It also ties itself to the sibling run_analysis as the consumer of these ids, so an agent can distinguish it from generic info/describe tools without opening the schema.

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 clause 'that can be driven with run_analysis' implies the intended workflow: enumerate valid module ids before invoking run_analysis. That is clear contextual guidance, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative (e.g., describe_analysis for a single module's parameters) is given.

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