tvh_list_epg_modules

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to carry the safety profile. It adds useful context about what is listed (native OTA/internal/external grabber modules) and that UUIDs and enabled status are included, but it does not mention result ordering, pagination, or any relationship between modules and EPG sources.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, module types, and returned fields without any wasted words.

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 the empty input schema, full annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's scope. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying its relationship to EPG sources or configuration tools, but nothing critical is missing for invoking a no-argument listing tool.

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 no parameter behavior for the description to compensate for. This matches the baseline expectation for a no-parameter operation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list EPG modules, and identifies the module categories (native OTA/internal/external grabber) plus the returned fields (UUIDs, enabled status). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as tvh_list_epg_sources or tvh_get_epg_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tvh_list_epg_sources, tvh_get_epg_config, or tvh_update_epg_module. The list operation is implied by the name and description, but no usage context or exclusions are provided.

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