Enumerate Webpack modules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It explicitly states a side effect: 'modifies the chunk array only by appending a runtime probe', and uses 'bounded' to indicate a limit. This is valuable. However, it does not disclose execution context, potential errors, return format, or whether other state could be affected beyond the chunk array, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action in the first sentence and follows with a concise note on the side effect. The structure is efficient and appropriately sized for a brief overview.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, what 'Raw target' means, prerequisites (e.g., the target being a Webpack bundle), or error behavior. The description covers only the basic side effect and boundedness, leaving many operational aspects unknown.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only vaguely hints at parameters: 'bounded' alludes to maxModules and 'selected Raw target' to targetSessionId. The query and sessionId parameters are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Evaluate') and a resource ('Webpack module-table collector'), and the title clarifies it enumerates Webpack modules. It is distinguished from sibling tools by focusing on Webpack's module table. However, the verb 'evaluate' is less precise than 'enumerate' or 'list', and 'Raw target' is undefined, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'in the selected Raw target', which implies a target selection but does not explain it. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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