plenticore_list_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the returned module set is scoped to the specific inverter AND the current user, meaning results are permission-dependent and not universal. It does not, however, say whether the call can fail on auth or whether modules gate the other tools.

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 eleven-word sentence with the action and the scoping qualifier front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With zero params, full annotation coverage and an output schema that documents the return shape, the description only needs to convey what the call yields and under what scoping. It does that, though it omits the practical implication that module presence determines which sibling tools are usable — the one piece of context an agent would most benefit from.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, consistent with the description implying no arguments are needed.

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 verb 'Discover' plus the resource 'modules actually offered by this inverter and current user' states a specific capability-enumeration operation, clearly distinct from the data-reading siblings (battery, energy, status, settings). It is clear but does not explicitly frame the result as a feature/capability manifest, which is what an agent would need to differentiate it from, say, plenticore_overview.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions any sibling tool. The phrase 'actually offered ... and current user' hints at a permission-dependent capability check, but the agent is left to infer that this is the discovery step to run before calling the other plenticore tools.

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