list_modules

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 explains the archived flag behavior, pagination cursor format, per_page range, order_by descending prefix, and the return envelope. It does not explicitly state auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, the provided behavioral details are substantial and clear.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste. It is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail module fields. It covers all parameters, explains pagination, and the return envelope. The only minor gap is that order_by does not enumerate valid field names, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: project_id as UUID, archived to toggle active vs archived, cursor with format '{per_page}:{page}:{offset}', per_page allowed range, and order_by with '-' prefix for descending. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 states 'List modules in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects and list_module_work_items by focusing on modules within a project.

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 clear context: list active or archived modules in a project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage is evident from the one-liner and parameter details. It could have explicitly distinguished from retrieve_module, but the context is sufficient.

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