getModules

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says it retrieves a list, which implies read-only behavior. It does not disclose return format, pagination, potential errors, or whether modules are global or tied to a specific API.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description adequately states what it returns, but the lack of output schema and absence of relationship to sibling tools leaves ambiguity about module scope and how it connects to getApi/getApis. An agent may need more context to decide when this tool is the right choice.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 because there is no parameter information needed 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 specifies a clear action ('获取') and resource ('Swagger API 的所有模块列表'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools getApis and getApi that deal with APIs rather than modules. However, it does not explicitly contrast those alternatives, so the differentiation relies on the resource term itself.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus getApis or getApi, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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