List modules

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by explaining that the returned content_token is meant to be passed to a guarded write, which goes beyond what annotations or a bare schema would say.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the tool's purpose and output, and avoids irrelevant details. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool returns or to when it should be selected.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and embedded annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what is listed, the file scope, and the routing to an alternative. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it appropriately.

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 one required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains file_path as an absolute path. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the VBA modules in an Office file,' with concrete output fields like kind, line count, and content_token. It also distinguishes itself from xlide_project_info, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 explicitly names the alternative xlide_project_info and gives the condition for choosing this tool: 'use this one when the file is already known and only the file is already known and only the module list is wanted.' This tells an agent exactly when to use it and when a more complete sibling is preferable.

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