Get Module Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes far beyond that by disclosing returned fields (stateDetails, activityDetails, ai_instruction), the actor semantics (ai/hybrid/human), partialFilter/profileOnly listing behavior, and how a listing's filter is auto-applied. This is substantial context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and most content (tier guidance, actor semantics, listing behavior) earns its place. The listing paragraph is dense and packs multiple ideas into one sentence, but it stays on-topic for an agent that must call list_entries afterward.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the fields each tier yields and their meaning. For a tool whose output drives downstream query construction, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine decision guidance for the tier enum (which tier to pick and why) rather than restating the schema's terse default. It adds nothing for workspaceId, which the schema already documents.

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: 'Read-only lookup of one module's schema', and immediately qualifies what it returns ('the canvas schema for a module'). The basic/extended tier split further pins down what the agent gets back, so it is distinguishable from generic module tools.

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 explicit when-to-use rules for the tier parameter ('Use basic for query operations. Use extended when you need to understand available activities and state transitions') and for listings ('pick the listing whose conditions already match the question and do NOT re-add them as filters'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling such as get_module_canvas, leaving that boundary to inference.

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