rws_read_module

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

The description lacks details beyond the basic action. Since there are no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. The term 'Read' implies a read operation, but no explicit confirmation or additional behavior is described. For a read tool, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It does not earn its place because it lacks details that are critical for correct tool usage. The brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (reading a module text), the description should at minimum explain what the return value is (the module text) and any constraints on the parameters. Without an output schema, the description does not indicate what the agent can expect as output. The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Both parameters ('task' and 'module') are required but have no description in the schema or the tool description. The description does not explain what values these parameters accept or their format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without necessary context to correctly populate the parameters.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Read RAPID module text') and the method ('via RWS'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose, but does not distinguish it from similarly named sibling tools like 'rs_read_module' which may have the same function with a different prefix.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'rs_read_module' or 'rws_read_file'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate usage scenario.

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