pt_device_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the result contains (slot path, type, installed module), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about how the tree is shaped or whether empty slots appear.

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?

A single compact sentence fragment with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of being a noun phrase rather than an explanation, but nothing is wasted.

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 must carry return-value meaning, and it lists the fields but not their structure or format. It also leaves the lone parameter's expected value unspecified, so an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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% for the single required `device` parameter, and the description only alludes to it via 'of a device'. It does not say whether this is a device name, ID, or label, or how to obtain one (presumably from pt_device).

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 — the module slot tree of a device — and enumerates the returned fields (slot path, slot type, installed module). It is clearly distinct from siblings like pt_add_module (mutation) or pt_device (device-level info), though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus pt_device, pt_topology, or pt_running_config, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only inspection use case is only implied by the noun phrase.

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