List Modules

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains pagination auto-truncation due to character limits, the response format (Markdown default, JSON option), and the shape of the JSON response (total, count, offset, limit, items, has_more, next_offset). This contextualizes the tool's behavior adequately.

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 well-structured with clear headings (common patterns, pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, returns). Information is front-loaded with the core action and then details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (10 parameters, pagination, various filters, response format choice), the description is nearly complete. It explains pagination mechanics, filter categories, and return format. It covers the response shape even without an output schema. Minor gaps: the resource-specific filters (device_id, module_bay_id, status) lack descriptions, and the description does not mention the maximum limit value explicitly (though it appears in the schema). Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 70% (7 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description summarizes parameter usage (e.g., pagination, filters) and organizes them into resource-specific and universal categories, which adds some value. However, for parameters like device_id, module_bay_id, and status, the description only lists them without additional meaning beyond the schema's placeholder descriptions. Overall, the description complements the schema but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what is already present.

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 clearly states the tool lists modules from NetBox with pagination and filtering. It distinguishes itself from netbox_get_module for lookup by id, and provides common patterns (discovery, narrow scan). The verb 'list' and resource 'modules' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs netbox_get_module (for id lookup). It gives common patterns like discovery and narrow scan with filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to other list tools in the sibling set, though the sibling set includes many list tools for different resources.

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