retrieve_module

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and implies a safe read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as whether both project_id and module_id are required, what the response contains, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the minimal description meets the baseline but offers no value beyond the structured data.

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, short sentence and is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical information about required parameters and usage. While concise, the lack of necessary content makes it less helpful than it could be, earning a middle score.

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 tool requiring two IDs (project_id and module_id) and having no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the hierarchical relationship between modules and projects, the need to know the project ID, or what is returned. The combination of schema and annotations provides some context, but the description fails to fill the gaps, leaving the agent without enough information for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It merely says 'by ID,' which is ambiguous given two required parameters (project_id and module_id). It does not clarify that project_id identifies the parent project and module_id identifies the module, nor does it explain why both are needed. This is misleading and fails to convey the actual parameter semantics.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('module'), clearly indicating the tool fetches a single module. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the module resource, though the phrasing is generic ('by ID') and does not explicitly differentiate from other retrieve_* tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_modules or other retrieve_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, contrast with similar tools, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not. The description simply states an action without contextual usage.

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