getModuleName

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it works on files or code snippets without needing the IDE server, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens with malformed input. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 extraction tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description provides good context about what it does and when to use it. It could be more complete by mentioning what the output looks like (since no output schema exists) or error conditions, but it covers the essential purpose well.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'files or code snippets' which aligns with the filePath/code parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('extract'), resource ('module name from PureScript code'), and scope ('files or code snippets without needing the IDE server'). It distinguishes from siblings like getFunctionNames or getImports by focusing specifically on module names.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for understanding code structure') and mentions it works without the IDE server, which differentiates it from some sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for related tasks.

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