Get module input/output contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool returns argument_spec and RETURN docstring with a grade, but does not state that it is read-only or disclose any potential side effects. The behavior is adequately described for a read operation.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no 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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that no modifications are made, but the return content is clear. Missing guidance on errors or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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 single parameter 'fqcn' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states it retrieves the full input/output contract for a module, and the tool name 'get_module_spec' aligns. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_collection_modules' (lists modules) and 'get_role_spec' (for roles), so purpose is specific and non-overlapping.

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 implies use when needing a module's contract, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context, though the single parameter makes misuse unlikely.

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