commentary_modules

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds value by disclosing that results include entry counts and licenses, but it does not describe the return structure (e.g., list format) or any behavioral nuances. With annotations covering safety, the added context is useful but thin.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every element ('commentary modules', 'library', 'entry counts', 'licenses') contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 a simple, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and the key return fields. It could be improved by clarifying that the result is a list of modules, but an agent can infer this from the name and description.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description need not explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to document or misinterpret.

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 identifies the resource (commentary modules in the library) and adds informative detail (entry counts and licenses). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'commentary' and 'dictionary_modules' by name and scope, though the verb ('list') is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'commentary' (likely fetches content) or 'dictionary_modules' (likely lists dictionary modules). An agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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