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 clearly discloses the returned data (readme, variables, outputs, last version) and the repo-name construction rule. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication, but it adds significant behavioral context beyond a bare 'get'.

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 text is well-structured: a lead sentence, a short bullet list of retrieved items, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is concise with no redundant content; every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description explains purpose, parameter format, and return summary. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation, especially given the output schema already specifies return structure.

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 has only service_name with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by providing examples ('vpc', 'ec2') and explaining the naming pattern 'terraform-aws-module-{service_name}', which is exactly the semantic needed for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Obtiene información detallada de un módulo de Terraform concreto.' It clearly lists the retrieved artifacts (README, variables.tf, outputs.tf, version tag) and is distinct from sibling tools like search_modules or list_module_versions.

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 use for fetching detailed module info, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like list_module_versions or search_modules. Guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings is only implicit.

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