list_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or pagination/limits, leaving the agent to infer these details from the tool name.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and contains no redundant 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the core function adequately. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines leaves gaps; the output schema helps complete the picture but does not substitute for these missing details.

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 only parameter project_id is implicitly described by 'de um projeto,' which clarifies it identifies the project whose modules are listed. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal additional detail about the parameter's format, constraints, or behavior.

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 'Lista modules de um projeto' clearly states the action (lists) and resource (modules of a project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other entities like issues, states, labels, and cycles.

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 implies the tool is used to list modules for a given project, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other list_* tools or mention any exclusions. Usage is inferred from the core purpose rather than explicitly explained.

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