anon_get_work_modules

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

The annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: deterministic ascending-by-creation-time ordering, the project-membership auth requirement, and the fact that the project is derived from the API key rather than passed in.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the list action, scope, ordering, and auth prerequisite. The opening 列出任务模块 slightly restates what the next sentence says more fully, but the endpoint path line is genuinely informative and nothing is padded.

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?

For a parameterless read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (all on-site task modules), the ordering, the auth requirement, and the implicit-project resolution. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description adds meaningful value by explaining that no projectId is needed because the project is auto-resolved from the API key – directly addressing the absence of any parameter in the empty schema.

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 (列出) and resource (现场任务模块) with the ordering scope (按创建时间升序) and endpoint path. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like anon_get_work_sheet, anon_post_work_modules, or anon_patch_work_modules_mid, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 permission prerequisite (需项目成员身份) is a useful usage condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no named alternative among the many work-module/get siblings. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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