check_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking options but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list, structured data), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly naming parameters or outcomes, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'options' are, how results are returned, or provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively in a complex environment with many siblings.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'module' as a parameter but doesn't explain 'prot' or provide any details on what values are expected, formats, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 the tool's purpose is to 'check what options that module presents' after selecting a module, which provides a vague but understandable action. However, it doesn't specify what kind of options are checked (e.g., configuration parameters, available actions) or what resource is involved, making it less specific than ideal. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'check_module' but not clearly from others like 'use_module'.

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 description provides minimal guidance by stating 'After selecting the right module call this', implying a sequence but not specifying when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'check_module' or 'use_module', leaving the agent with little context for decision-making.

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