list_modules

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

Annotations already establish read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds domain context (modules group work items by feature/theme) and identifies the output value (module IDs), but does not mention pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, no redundancy; front-loaded with the core action and then adds necessary context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it should be clearer about the return structure (e.g., module objects vs. just IDs) and any list behavior. The purpose and use case are clear, but some operational details remain implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'in a project'; it does not explain the required project_id format or the optional params object. This adds little meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all modules in a project'), and adds context about modules grouping work items by feature/theme. This clearly distinguishes it from retrieve_module and other module management siblings.

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 sentence about 'module IDs needed for managing module work items' implies the intended use case: obtaining IDs before managing module work items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but provides clear contextual guidance relative to list_module_work_items/create_module.

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