list_modules

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, confirming a non-mutating operation. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether empty groups are included or how modules and groups are organized. This meets the baseline but doesn't enrich the agent's understanding.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action and scope. There is no redundant wording; every word contributes to meaning, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 simple list operation with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It captures the core purpose, while the schema and annotations cover return values and safety. Slight room for improvement by noting how modules/groups relate or pointing to complementary tools, but not necessary for basic use.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with model_id and workspace_id clearly described. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, only restating the 'current model' concept already present in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 a read-only enumeration of modules/groups within the current model scope, using an action verb and specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_variables and list_connectors by naming the resource, but lacks additional context about the module hierarchy or relationship to other tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_variables, list_connectors, or inspect_model. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having an active model) or clear scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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