search_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'cached modules' which adds some context about data source, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only, what happens if no matches are found, if results are paginated, or any performance/rate limit considerations for a search operation.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cached modules' are, what the search returns (e.g., matches, context, module names), or how results are structured. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'text/regex' which hints at the 'query' parameter and 'isRegex' boolean, but doesn't explain what 'cached modules' means, what format results return, or the purpose of the 'limit' parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 ('searches') and resource ('text/regex in cached modules'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling search tools (none are listed, but the agent might need to know when to use this vs. other search-related tools).

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. With siblings like 'get_module', 'list_modules', and 'list_functions', there's no indication of when searching text/regex is preferred over those listing tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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