get_module_text

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only mentions the access requirement, omitting whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or the format of the returned text. This is insufficient for complete transparency.

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 long with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the critical condition. Every word adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return value (plain text of the module). It fails to do so, nor does it mention error cases or performance implications. The tool is simple, but the description leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (full_name, module_type) with coverage at 100%. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves the source text of a configuration object module, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with metadata, attributes, or other object properties. The verb 'get' and resource 'module text' provide unambiguous purpose.

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 provides a key condition (extension must have access to main configuration) but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_object_metadata or get_object_attributes, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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