Get Module Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reads from setup_module and filters by LIKE pattern, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotation and provides clear behavioral transparency about where data comes from.

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 with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action (reads from setup_module), then adds the optional filter, and ends with the intended use case. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple, read-only, with an output schema present (so return values don't need to be explained). The description fully covers what it does and when to use it. There is no missing critical information for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 has 100% coverage with each parameter well-described (profile, magentoRoot, module_pattern). The description adds example values and clarifies that module_pattern is a LIKE pattern and optional. However, this adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, so a baseline 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 reads module schema/data versions from the setup_module table, specifying the exact resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from other read-only tools by focusing on module version verification, which is a specific use case. The verb 'Reads' is concrete and the target table is named.

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 clear use case: 'Use to verify module upgrades applied correctly.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_magento_config for configuration values), but the context is clear enough for a read-only version check. Minor gap since alternatives aren't named.

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