get_node_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, and '(XPack)' faintly hints at a licensed feature requirement, but there is no word on permissions, licensing, failure modes, or scope.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: four words carry no actionable content beyond the tool name, and the parenthetical '(XPack)' adds jargon instead of meaning.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation for a required argument, the definition supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly. The bare name-plus-tag leaves purpose, input meaning, and behavior entirely unresolved.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required 'id' parameter. An agent cannot tell from either source whether 'id' identifies a Node environment, a module, or a host, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ('Get Node modules' for get_node_modules) plus an unexplained tag '(XPack)'. It states a verb and a resource, but 'modules' is ambiguous (installed npm packages? runtime modules?) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as get_node_package_scripts or operate_node_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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the adjacent Node tooling (get_node_package_scripts, operate_node_module), nor any stated prerequisites such as needing an XPack license or a valid environment. The only hint is the name itself.

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