show_moduledetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the default viewId equals the moduleId, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical usage tip.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only vaguely mentions 'module details with default view dimension metadata' without specifying the exact return structure. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what data it will receive.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but also does not contradict or mislead.

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 module details with default view dimension metadata (rows, columns, pages). It distinguishes from sibling 'show_' tools by specifying the inclusion of default view dimensions and directly linking to read_cells usage.

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 this tool to get the viewId for read_cells. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like show_viewdetails.

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