module_add_mi_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions inserting a handler and updating an array but does not discuss side effects (e.g., ordering, impact on existing code, error handling, permissions). Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with four sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, followed by a brief explanation of effects, then a clear parameter list. No wasted words; essential information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema (per context signals) but the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or validation of inputs. It assumes prior knowledge of OpenSIPS module structure and does not specify what 'existing module source' means in terms of format or completeness. Incomplete for a code-generation 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?

Schema coverage is 0% per signals, but the description lists each parameter and provides a brief explanation. For command_name, an example is given. However, explanations are somewhat tautological (e.g., 'Description of what the MI command does') and do not add constraints or formats beyond the schema. Adequate but not enriched.

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 the action ('Add an MI command'), the resource ('existing OpenSIPS module C source'), and what it does internally ('Inserts the MI command handler function and updates the mi_cmds array'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'module_add_param' by specifying the target code construct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., module_add_param, module_compile). No prerequisites or context about when it's appropriate to add an MI command. The description omits any usage hints.

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