mureo_analytics_modules_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the return shape (one entry per platform with capabilities), the canonical platform key format (including plugin-specific composite keys), and the relationship between registry_name and source_distribution. This covers key interpretive behavior, though it doesn't discuss error conditions or auth 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and returns shape, then explains key semantics. While not terse, every sentence serves a purpose, detailing capabilities, usage, key format, and field roles. The structure is logical, though the long parentheticals could be slightly better organized.

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 the tool has no input schema and no output schema, the description must fully explain both inputs and outputs. It adequately covers output shape (one entry per platform, capabilities list), the canonical key format, built-in vs plugin modules, and the meaning of registry_name and source_distribution. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the output fields (platform, registry_name, source_distribution) that the parameterless invocation will return.

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 'List analytics modules registered for each integrated platform,' specifying the action, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explaining this is a registry lookup consulted by workflow skills, distinctly separate from tools that run analytics or manage state.

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 usage context: 'Workflow skills consult this to decide whether to run deep analytics for a platform or honestly report analytics_not_available_for_<platform>.' It also explains the difference between built-in and plugin-supplied modules. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for exclusion.

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