aspro_list_modules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is known. The description adds valuable context by specifying it returns entity and operation counts, and that it lists top-level modules. No contradiction with annotations; the added detail exceeds the bare operation.

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 packs the purpose, scope, and output details without redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the scope (top-level modules), and the output content (entity and operation counts). No missing elements are apparent for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema confirms no properties, and the description focuses on output, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools.

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 lists all top-level Aspro.Cloud API modules with counts, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly names examples (crm, fin, agile, task) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entities and list_methods by focusing on module-level scope.

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—when an overview of top-level modules is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_entities, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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