Discover APIFreaks modules

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the opt-in gating model, the fact that only this tool registers when ENABLE_MODULES is unset, the shape of the returned payload, and the required restart to activate modules.

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?

Purpose and trigger conditions are front-loaded, and the operator instructions come before the long module enumeration. The 19-module list is dense but serves a real discovery purpose, so it earns its space, though it slightly lengthens the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the return value, the enablement workflow, and the restart requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on its output.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies. The description compensates usefully by explaining the returned payload (needs_enable[], paste-ready enable_line), which is the only 'input-like' detail an agent needs to act on the result.

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 names a specific resource ('APIFreaks module catalog') and states exactly what the tool returns (needs_enable[] with enable_line values) and under what opt-in condition it exists. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the live module tools without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit triggers ('Call when a needed capability is missing from your tool list, or to check whether APIFreaks covers a topic'), clarifies that enabled tools already appear in tools/list, and prescribes the follow-up action (hand the user the ENABLE_MODULES line and ask for a restart). Nothing is left to inference.

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