List modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the sources scanned (official, Steam Workshop, user's own) and exactly which fields come back (id, version, flags, folder), which the annotations do not provide.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return fields, then filter values. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and sources, and the two optional params are fully covered by the schema. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify the difference between the 'mods' and 'writable' filter buckets and note whether results are ever paginated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum values and default. The description merely restates the filter options and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('installed modules'), enumerates the module sources and the fields returned (id, version, flags, folder). It is unambiguous on its own, though it never names or differentiates itself from the sibling module_info.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'filter: all | official | mods | writable | workshop | enabled' list suggests how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as module_info for single-module details.

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