list_gradle_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (listing modules) with no side effects. It does not elaborate on potential errors or prerequisites beyond the gradlew wrapper, but for a simple list tool, this is sufficient. The behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 concise single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: listing the result, usage examples, and a note about single-module builds. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's output format (modules as paths like ':app'), how to use it, and the edge case of single-module builds. No additional information is needed for effective use.

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 schema coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter 'project_dir'. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the optionality via session defaults (referencing 'session_set_defaults'). This provides crucial context for an agent, elevating it above the baseline 3.

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 the tool's purpose: listing Gradle modules (sub-projects) in a project directory. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Gradle modules'), and provides examples like ':app', ':core', ':feature:login'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'gradle_build' and 'list_gradle_variants' by explaining how the output is used to target those tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to find which module to point at 'gradle_build' or 'list_gradle_variants', or to address a task with a module path. It also explains the single-module build case, giving clear context. Though no explicit 'when not to use', the use case is well-defined and leaves no ambiguity.

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