list_modules

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 mentions 'cached bundle' which hints at performance characteristics but doesn't explain what caching entails, whether results are real-time, or how fresh the data is. It doesn't describe output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a qualifying detail ('from cached bundle') that adds context without verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for the parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'modules' are in this context, what the cached bundle contains, how results are structured, or how the parameter affects output. For a tool with one parameter and no structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'excludeVendor'. The description provides no information about this parameter—what 'vendor' means, why one would exclude it, or how it affects results. With 1 parameter completely undocumented, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('modules'), and specifies the source ('from cached bundle'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module' (singular) and 'search_modules' (searching). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_functions' or 'analyze_structure' in terms of scope.

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 like 'search_modules' or 'get_module'. The description mentions 'cached bundle' but doesn't explain what that means or when caching applies. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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