list_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and specifies the kinds of data returned (installation status, version, component counts). It does not disclose potential side effects, but none are implied for a list 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and adds concise detail about the output. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is listed and the specific categories of information shown, which is sufficient given the low complexity and available output schema.

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, and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter information but also requires none.

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 available clearskies extension modules and summarizes what each provides. It specifies additional outputs (installation status, version, component counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_module_info or explain_module that target individual modules.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining an overview of all modules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the clear listing intent and contrast with sibling get_* tools provide adequate context.

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