debugger_modules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paged and include symbol information, but says nothing about whether symbol info may be empty, how large module lists behave, or what the timeout governs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'loaded modules' and 'symbol information' come first. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is read-only. However, for a paginated debugger tool requiring a session_id, the description omits the session requirement, timeout behavior, and pagination semantics, leaving notable gaps.

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 reported at 0% and the description only obliquely mentions 'a page', leaving the page/count/start defaults, the meaning of session_id, and the timeout parameter unexplained. The nested PageRequest and Timeout $defs carry brief descriptions, but the description itself does little to compensate for the coverage 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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('loaded modules and available symbol information'), with paging scope stated. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as debugger_threads, debugger_stack, or debugger_variables, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 on when to call this versus other debugger introspection tools, no statement that an active debug session is required, and no note about prerequisites for obtaining session_id. Usage is only inferable from the tool's placement among debugger_* siblings.

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