Module details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses that dependency versions are resolved/installed, that Xmls entries come with resolved files and object counts, and that unregistered files and language files are included — which tells the agent this is an aggregating inspection call, not a raw file dump.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Details of one module') and then lists contents. Nothing is wasted, though the long comma-separated enumeration is slightly harder to scan than a short lead sentence plus a bulleted scope list would be.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly across every section the agent will receive. It is nearly complete; the only gap is error behavior for an unknown module id and any note on output size for large mods.

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 100% and the single 'module' parameter is already documented with examples (MyMod, Native, SandBoxCore). The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (one module) and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces — SubModule.xml fields, dependencies, DLL entries, Xmls registrations, XSLT patches, unregistered/language files. It is clearly distinct from list_modules (singular vs plural) and from edit_submodule, but it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. a valid installed module id), and no routing to alternatives such as list_modules for enumeration or game_info for broader game context. Usage is only implied by the singular 'one module'.

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