list_modules

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

No annotations provided, so description must supply behavioral context. Describes return data but omits details like sorting, pagination, or empty result handling. Adequate for a simple listing tool, but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and output; second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, description reasonably hints at return structure (IDs, titles, concerns). Covers filtering by category. Lacks details on sorting or limits, but sufficient for typical discovery 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?

Single parameter 'category' with enum values. Schema already fully describes it (100% coverage). Description adds minor clarification (M01-M22, SUPP-*), but not substantial beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states action 'List all available architecture modules' with specific return fields (IDs, titles, key concerns). Differentiates from siblings like get_module (single) and search_patterns.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to discover what knowledge is available before querying specific modules,' providing clear context. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use (e.g., for specific details use get_module), but the intent is clear.

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