Skip C/C++ build modules

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

Annotations mark this as a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: invalid values are rejected with NO_SUCH_MODULE and the knownModules list is returned so the agent can recover. It also encodes a human-confirmation policy appropriate for a mutation. Remaining gap is whether the skip persists across runs and is undone via statica_scope_unskip_module, which the description leaves implicit.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the C/C++ scope and the core action, then the value source, error behavior, and consent requirement in that order. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and every sentence carries a decision-relevant fact.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope, value provenance, failure semantics, and a confirmation protocol, which is close to everything an agent needs. The only real omission is the reversibility/persistence story (the existence and use of statica_scope_unskip_module) and any mention of the projectDir parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces paths as coming from modules[].output in statica_scope_show, which adds provenance beyond the schema's field description but not format or multiplicity detail; projectDir gets no mention in the description at all.

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?

"C/C++ only: skip whole build modules" gives a specific verb (skip), a specific resource (whole build modules), and an explicit applicability constraint. It also names the sibling statica_scope_show as the value source, so an agent can distinguish this from scope_show or the file-level scope_exclude/include without opening a schema.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite workflow: fetch modules[].output from statica_scope_show, show the list, and confirm with the user before calling, plus the caveat that noise classification is subjective and belongs to the user. It stops short of saying when not to use this (e.g. when to reach for statica_scope_unskip_module or file-level exclude/include instead), so it is clear but not exhaustively routed.

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