get_module_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The use of 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and specifying 'enabled' clarifies what subset of modules is returned. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned, which is appropriate for a simple getter.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description completely conveys its functionality. The scope is explicitly tied to the 'current project', making it contextually complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; the empty schema is fully covered.

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's function: retrieving enabled modules/features for the current project. The verb 'Get' combined with the specific resource 'modules/features' makes the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools which address different domains (bookings, OTP, residents, etc.).

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 implies the tool should be used when needing to know which modules or features are active in the current project. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the usage context to be inferred rather than directly stated.

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