agora_get_module

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read ('Fetch') and hints at return contents ('versions and proposals'), but never states read-only safety, permissions, or whether a missing module errors versus returns empty. Only minimal behavioral context is added.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is efficient, but its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness. Front-loaded verb and resource are good; the trailing fragment could have been spent on more useful information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is structurally simple with one parameter. Still, for a retrieval tool in a crowded sibling set with zero annotation and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves too much to inference to be considered complete.

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% and the single required parameter module_id has no type or format detail anywhere. The description does not compensate — it never mentions the identifier or its expected form.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one module'), and 'one' distinguishes it weakly from the sibling agora_list_modules. However, the trailing fragment 'versions and proposals' is ambiguous — it does not clarify whether those are separate return payloads or child entities, leaving the tool's actual scope vague.

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 about when to use this instead of agora_list_modules, agora_review_module, or agora_publish_module is provided. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the singular/plural contrast with siblings.

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