Get Modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful behavioral detail that search operates over module_data content, and the read-only listing nature is implicit in "List", but it says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how partial matching behaves.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core listing action front-loaded ahead of the filter details. Slightly terse for the information it must carry, 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both input parameters receive at least some semantic treatment. What remains missing (match behavior, result size) is minor for a simple read-only listing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably well: module_type is given concrete example values ('products', 'slider', 'product_tabs') and search is scoped to module_data content. It stops short of describing match semantics or the empty-string defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List Journal3 modules") and names the filterable dimension, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the singular sibling get_j3_module, which is the main nearby ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the two filters (type filtering, content search), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of alternatives such as get_j3_module for a single module. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing guidance.

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