get_kernel_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this is a read-only operation reading from /proc/modules, which is important for an agent to know that no system changes will occur. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns modules' statement.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and result are front-loaded first and the troubleshooting use case is stated in a compact second sentence.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, source, and when to use it. There is no missing operational detail that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema accuracy indicates no missing parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('loaded kernel modules') and details the returned data ('size, reference count, and dependency info'). This distinguishes it from the large catalog of sibling read-only diagnostic tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use: 'Use for driver and module troubleshooting.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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