cfg_add_module

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the insertion location (after last loadmodule/modparam block) but lacks details on validation, error handling, or side effects. Could be more transparent.

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 well-structured with a brief intro and parameter list. It is clear but could be slightly more concise (e.g., avoid repeating 'loadmodule' twice).

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 many sibling tools and a complex operation, the description covers the core purpose but does not mention return values or post-conditions. The presence of an output schema mitigates this partially, but additional context on expected results would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description details each parameter: config_content as existing config text, module_name as the module string, and params as an optional dict. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions.

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 it adds a module with optional parameters to an OpenSIPS configuration, specifying the insertion of loadmodule and modparam directives. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cfg_edit or cfg_lint.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use cfg_add_module vs module_add_param or cfg_edit). The usage is implied but not stated.

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