legal_get_social_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, and the cvrt-legal 0.6.0+ requirement is a genuine prerequisite, but there is no disclosure of permissions, what happens if no modules were imported, or the shape of the result.

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 short sentences, the purpose front-loaded and the version constraint following. Neither sentence is filler, though the version note is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so explanation of return values is not required. Still, the description gives no sense of what a 'social module' contains or whether the result can be empty, leaving a small gap.

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 100% – the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema with a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get the imported social-media text modules.' The qualifier 'imported' and 'text modules' distinguishes it from legal_get_social and legal_put_social_modules, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely-named siblings (legal_get_social, legal_put_social_modules, legal_get_generator_library). The version prerequisite is useful but is not positive/negative usage guidance.

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