get_module

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves code from a cache, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't address potential side effects (e.g., cache updates), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error handling, cache behavior (e.g., freshness, eviction), and what the returned code includes (e.g., metadata, formatting). For a tool that retrieves code, more context about the output would be helpful despite the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific module ID' which adds some meaning to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ID (e.g., format, source) or how it relates to the cache. This partial compensation is insufficient given the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states the action ('Gets') and the resource ('code for specific module ID from cache'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_modules' or 'get_symbol_source', which would require more specific language about what makes this retrieval unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_modules' or 'search_modules'. It mentions 'specific module ID' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the ID first) or when other tools might be more appropriate, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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