reflens_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 states the tool is 'cheap' (low cost) and describes output fields, but does not mention error behavior, prerequisites (like repo existence), or pagination. While the purpose is clear, behavioral details are incomplete.

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 consists of two compact, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and how it fits in the workflow. However, it lacks specifics on the return format or error conditions, which would make it more complete for an agent.

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 input schema has one parameter 'repo' with 0% description coverage. The description only calls it a 'reference repo', adding minimal clarity about format, allowed values, or how to specify it. For a 1-param tool, more detail was expected to compensate for the schema gap.

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 provides a 'Compact table-of-contents for a reference repo' listing 'top-level modules with file counts, languages, and internal-dependency weight.' It distinguishes itself from sibling reflens_map by positioning it as a cheap nav menu to call first before drilling into 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 advises 'call this (or reflens_map) first, then drill into a module with reflens_map'. This gives a clear workflow but does not fully distinguish when to choose reflens_modules over reflens_map for the initial call, leaving some ambiguity.

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