read_module_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: page selections override the automatic topLevelItem rollup, enabling drill-down. This is meaningful beyond the name. However, it does not mention return format or potential limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every phrase contributes to understanding when and how to use the tool.

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 read tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It explains the drilling use case and the page parameter's effect. It could add more about return structure or error conditions, but the essential context is present.

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 100%, with all three parameters described. The description's mention of page selections and top-level rollup largely repeats what the schema already states. It adds no significant new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 data with explicit page selections, using the verb 'read' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_module_summary by emphasizing drill-down into a specific slice versus top-level rollup.

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?

Directly provides usage guidance: 'Use when the user asks to filter by a specific dimension member instead of the top-level rollup.' This explicitly tells the agent when to select this tool over alternatives, contrasting it with the top-level rollup behavior.

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