ik_stdlib_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns function signatures, summaries, reference docs, and optionally source, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, or performance characteristics. For a documentation retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the scope, contents, and input format.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (signatures, summary, reference doc, optional source) and the expected input format. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid module names), but for a straightforward documentation tool, the description is sufficiently complete given its simplicity.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'name' takes a module identifier like 'gpio' or 'std/gpio', and 'include_source' corresponds to optional source inclusion. This provides context that the bare schema lacks, though it could be more explicit about the include_source parameter's effect.

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 this tool returns the full API for one stdlib module, including public function signatures, summaries, reference docs, and optionally source. It distinguishes from siblings like ik_stdlib_list (which likely lists modules) and ik_search by focusing on a single module's complete API.

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 implies usage: when you need a specific module's full API documentation. It provides input format examples ('gpio' or 'std/gpio') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as ik_stdlib_list or ik_search. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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