get_module

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It implies a safe read operation by stating it returns details, but does not explicitly mention no side effects, error handling for missing IDs, or any permissions. Acceptable for a simple get, but lacks full transparency.

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 sentences plus a line of examples. Front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second details contents, then usage and examples. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (one required param, output schema exists, many siblings), the description covers purpose, contents, usage, and examples. It is complete enough for effective selection and invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for module_id. The description compensates by providing concrete example IDs and their meanings (e.g., '12' for Attention/Transformers), which adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves full details for a specific module, listing included fields (description, notebooks, links, tags, prerequisites). It distinguishes from siblings like list_modules (listing all) and search_modules (searching) by focusing on a single known module.

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 when a student asks about a specific topic or module,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the context implies it's for known module IDs, not for general browsing.

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