romeo_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the modules are legacy/inherited, and the tool is a fallback rather than the official path. It does not describe output or search behavior, but the output schema covers returns.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads what the tool lists, the second immediately routes the agent to the preferred alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is complete on purpose and usage. The only notable gap is the undocumented `search` parameter, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the single `search` parameter is never mentioned in the description. The parameter name is intuitive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation by explaining what search filters or how it works.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists Environment Modules inherited from an older machine. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling romeo_software by naming it as the official path.

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?

It gives explicit when/when-not guidance: use romeo_software first, and only fall back to modules if a software package is absent from the Spack catalog. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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