cfg_list_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a list operation (read-only) but does not disclose details like output format, pagination, or authentication needs. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description itself offers minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a usage note and parameter documentation. It is concise with no wasted words, and the parameter list is well structured with examples.

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 simplicity of the tool (list with filters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and parameters adequately. Minor omissions like what the output contains are addressed by the output schema, so it is nearly 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters clearly: version with an example ('3.6') and category with a list of category names. This adds significant meaning over the schema's bare titles.

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 'List modules from the OpenSIPS module catalog', which is a specific verb and resource. It also explains the use case by the wizard and LLMs to check module availability, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like cfg_add_module or cfg_list_versions.

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 provides a clear context for use: 'by the wizard and by LLMs that need to check whether a module is available in a given version.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though siblings are distinct.

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