list_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lister' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the mention of status conveys the returned data. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, authorization requirements, or whether any filtering behavior beyond the status parameter exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the practical value. No filler or 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's simplicity, the description and schema together cover the essential aspects: what it lists, the optional filter, and why it's useful. It does not describe the return format or error conditions, but for a straightforward list operation, the current information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'status' parameter, describing its values and default. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lister' with a clear resource 'tous les modules Dolibarr' and their status, making its purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on module enumeration, which is unique among the provided 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Essentiel pour savoir quelles fonctionnalités sont disponibles' tells the agent when this tool is useful. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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