get_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication model ('public, anon key auth') but does not mention error behavior, pagination, rate limits, or permissions beyond auth. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly confirmed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and auth context without waste. Every word contributes to the 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is under-specified. It lacks details about return structure, error cases, and relationship to other module tools. The auth note is helpful but not sufficient for full agent decision-making.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the format or provenance of module_id, only implying via 'single module' that this parameter identifies which module to fetch. The param name is self-explanatory but the description adds minimal value 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single module') with scope ('with its records'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_page_modules or get_record. The 'single' qualifier makes the one-record nature explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_modules_editor or get_context. The parenthetical 'public, anon key auth' hints at public-facing usage but does not explicitly state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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