List modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that it scans seven named directories, but says nothing about return format, filtering, recursion into subfolders, or whether the list is cached/refreshed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then supplies the directory constraint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 zero-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, the definition is adequate, but with no output schema the agent gets no hint about what is returned (filenames, paths, counts) or how it relates to reanim_get_module_info and reanim_check_module_assets.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted, since the directory scope is fixed internally.

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 (.lua module files) and enumerates the exact directories scanned, which is concrete and identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like reanim_list_root_plugins, but the enumerated directory scope does most of the differentiation work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus reanim_list_root_plugins, reanim_get_module_info, or reanim_search_features. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of when this listing is the right first step.

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