get_module_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return includes function signatures, parameter descriptions, and documentation, but does not specify if it is read-only, what the source of the docs is, or any authentication or side effects. This leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose and key functionality (fuzzy matching) are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks comparison to the sibling tool 'search_api' and does not explain the output format in detail (though it mentions what is returned). Minor but acceptable gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('screen' → 'ascript.windows.screen') that clarifies how fuzzy matching works for the 'module' parameter, going beyond the schema.

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 retrieves complete API documentation for a specified module with fuzzy matching, using a specific example ('screen' matches 'ascript.windows.screen'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_api by focusing on module-level documentation.

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 mentions fuzzy matching and gives an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_api or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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