retrieve_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retrieve' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and 'Returns: Module object' specifies the outcome. It does not detail error cases or auth, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It wastes no words, but the inclusion of the extraneous 'workspace_slug' parameter is a minor structural flaw.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type. However, the workspace_slug inconsistency is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect invocations, and it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 description adds human-readable meanings for parameters (e.g., 'UUID of the project'), which is valuable given the input schema has no descriptions. However, it lists 'workspace_slug' which is not present in the input schema, creating potential confusion for the agent.

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 'Retrieve a module by ID' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating this is a single-resource read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_modules and create_module by emphasizing retrieval by ID.

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 implies usage when a specific module ID and project ID are known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_modules or provide exclusions/alternatives. The 'by ID' phrasing gives some contextual guidance but lacks explicit direction.

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