module_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using clangd AST and the analysis nature, but does not disclose side effects, limitations, or return format. The description is not misleading but leaves behavioral details unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy or filler. It clearly front-loads the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to invoke it effectively. It only states what it does, not the result format, thresholds usage, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a complex analysis 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (file, concurrency, minBodyLines, minStatements). Although parameter names hint at meaning, the agent gains no explicit semantic guidance, requiring inference or external knowledge.

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 uses a specific verb 'find' and 'verify' on a clear resource: module interfaces matched to .cpp implementations. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like module_search or module_graph, which focus on different aspects.

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 purpose implies usage for checking module definition-implementation consistency, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The context is inferable but not clearly articulated.

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